Since The Roar is now letting lawyers interpret statistics – yes blame Harry Jones – I thought I’d give it a go.
Like everyone else, except perhaps the guy who came up with ‘Moneyball’, I accept that sporting contests are decided by more than mere statistics.
There are intangibles, such as the weather, the ref, the crowd, biorythmns, mental and physical fatigue, lucky socks and the like.
Often we use in game statistics to justify past results but they don’t always match up. For instance the semi-finals last weekend told two very separate and perplexing stories.
Show me the New Zealand versus Boks stats without the score and I would’ve said the Kiwi’s probably won by 15+. On the other hand do the same for the Pumas Wallabies game and I would’ve thought the Pumas won.
Surely, with the Wallabies missing 33 tackles and the Pumas making line breaks at will, the Pumas must scored more often than an Argentinain polo player at Centennial Park. But no, those statistics did not reflect the results at all.
The Kiwis strangled a tough but ultimately unimaginative Boks team and the Wallabies outthought and outplayed a very gallant Argentinian outfit.
Now we have the final we antipodeans have been longing for. Our Kiwi brethren have, in their most humble and self effacing manner, grudgingly admitted that they probably have the team to beat the upstart Wallabies. In fact some independent observers, whose opinions I value, have suggested the Wallabies will likely lose by 12+ (I’m looking at you again Mr Jones).
I beg to differ.
My analysis is based on the following reasons.
1. NZ are an almost impossible task at Eden Park and;
2. NZ are only slightly less impossible anywhere else in NZ.
Accordingly my analysis is based on the following data.
1. Past world cup finals (discounting the thrashings of 1987 and 1999);
2. Last 10 games between Australia and New Zealand outside of NZ;
3. All games between Australia and New Zealand at neutral grounds.
Many of my Kiwi brethren across the dutch will cry foul and accuse me of churry pecking, to them I say, yes you are right but it doesn’t make the following analysis any less compelling.
Read on.
Firstly, World Cup finals are close. If you remove 1987 (NZ 29–France 9) and 1999 (Australia 35–France 12) the numbers get very interesting.
The biggest margin is 9. Two games went into extra time. The average points for is 14 and against is 9.6.
In fact if you take out extra time the average points for is 12.8 versus 9.6, that’s an average margin of 3.2.
Of the last 10 games played between Australia and New Zealand outside of fortress New Zealand, the results have been much more interesting. New Zealand 5 wins, Australia 3 wins and 2 draws. New Zealand averaged 26.8 points across those ten games and Australia averaged 23.4 despite two heavy losses (2010 Melbourne 49-28 and 2013 Sydney 47–29).
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but those pesky Kiwis are starting to look positively human away from home.
A 50 per cent loss record to New Zealand would be the envy of every other team in world rugby. But hey the Wallabies still only have a 37.5 per cent win record against New Zealand in those games. Yep agreed, but there’s more my friends.
Since the 2011 Cup the Kiwis have lost 3 games and drawn 2. One of those losses and both of those draws were against the Wallabies.
So 60 per cent per cent of the time when New Zealand don’t win, Australia are responsible for it.
Let me say that again “60 per cent of the time the Kiwis don’t win it’s because of the Wallabies”.
What about neutral venues? I’m so glad you asked:
1991 World Cup semi, Ireland: Australia 16, New Zealand 6
2008 Hong Kong: New Zealand 19, Australia 14
2009 Tokyo: New Zealand 32, Australia 19
2010 Hong Kong: Australia 26, New Zealand 24
The neutral venue is a great advantage for the Wallabies. Neutral venues four games. Two wins apiece. That’s 50:50 ladies and gents. And that my friends is Jenga!
Bazza Allblack Supporter
Roar Rookie
Want to revisit this article now... http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/73565536/referee-review-nigel-owens-entirely-forgettable-performance-in-rugby-world-cup-final-was-perfect
Tiger
Guest
The AB's will be fine come match day. There'll be nerves leading up to kick off for both teams, imo the AB's will deal with the situation and circumstances better. Their old heads will provide the calming influence required if it gets tight, but I can't see it. All Blacks by 20+.
Harry Jones
Expert
Hope you're right, RT!
Paulie
Guest
You are most definitely a numbers man RT, a banker, accountant or axe man by profession? any one of these two great teams can win it all depends who can handle the pressure and the occasion...
Not Bothered
Guest
Well, its because the Wallabies can win but it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons in this article. The Wallabies of 2015 have played, at times, the kind of rugby that could beat and has beaten the ABs. Mentioning a game from a quarter of a century ago doesnt make that any more or less likely. Its 2015 and its game on.
Not Bothered
Guest
There is no rule, just co.incidence
Martin English
Roar Rookie
You forgot to allow for coaching. Since you're going back to last century, is it valid to consider that Hansen lost 3-zip to the ABs when coaching Wales, while Cheika (aka The Messiah of Australian Rugby) has a 1 out of 2 record ? Then again McCaw is a glider pilot, which regularly puts him closer to God (aka Dan Carter) than mere mortals like you I.
RT
Guest
My bad. I thought it was based on denial. The intelligent smoker syndrome.
Paul
Guest
No, it is satisfying yourself with not achieving the outcome you sought by creating a counterpoint to claim the loss as a better outcome after all.
RT
Guest
Isn't denial of relevant facts/data at the centre of the theory of cognitive dissonance?
RT
Guest
My selection may well be flawed and past results may be no indication of future performance but I still think this will be a lot closer than most expect. To be fair it started out as me trying to work out whether $1,92 for a 6 point start was good value.
taylorman
Roar Guru
I think the rule apples to England where its generally every 10 years as that's been going since the 60's kind of thing (bar 2002/3) but Oz every 4 years with the frequency we play them? Well I'd certainly be happy if we didn't lose to them until 2017. Can see a loss next year with our team going through an upgrade. Makes next years SXV exciting...
Paul from Melbourne
Guest
No, I'm not mean. I'm just cherry picking like the rest of us, and I have a good reason for that. The last 4 years are the most appropriate comparison because both sides have largely the same players, particularly our side, and are playing pretty much under the same rules. The 20 year stats are too much skewed by the Eales era. He last played 15 years ago and you weren't allowed to lift players in lineouts in 1995, so how can you use that? Anyway even if we use your stats RT, one win very 1.25 year, means you are not expected to win again until 2017. In all honesty and phoney war aside, The Aussies are a good side and Cheika has done a good job to turn around a bunch of rebels. They were the form team in this tournament and were favourite to be in the final. We will have to be on top of our game, and may be better than we ever were, if we want to win another one over them.
john
Guest
thing is YES the win loss record is fact & undisputable. but kiwi supporters, why the incessant correcting of us poor old aussie battlers who simply need to find some optimism via, well, any means possible, to allow us to feel good about our chances in a game against the kiwis??? its all you guys can offer up which is why you are not known for victorious humility (no a lot of our lot aren't either but you guys rule the world for this too). imagine not having an overall win % of 77% & losing to more than only 5 tier 1 nations. that is not normal. so for the rest of us "normal" folk this (I refer to all of the aforementioned optimism in this article & comments & rest of the Roar & beyond) is all we have to feed our rugby hunger & support of our own teams. I have a kiwi & saffa in my team at work & we LOVE rugby. I propose to my saffa colleague that perhaps the future RWCs should not include the mighty kiwis as we would then have a genuine 3/4 horse race. meanwhile the kiwis or "T-800 terminator cyborgs with flame throwers" (as quoted elsewhere on the Roar) can set off with Sir Richard Branson, on an intergalactic mission to find & defeat new opposition.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes Pauls being a bit mean there :-). Its 1 in 4 since we lost at Brisbane but thats stretching it...
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes thats true but then you remove all other countries, remove home's or aways, remove non world cups matches and you're left with the 91 semi. Is that indicative? Fair enough then. You could add in Hong kong but that was a match on the way to an AB streak of 17 matches where the ABs had already beaten Oz in Oz and NZ in matches that mattered and even then they won it at the death. i mean fair enough to add in whatever, its still not significant in any way.
RT
Guest
But they're playing Australia T-man so totals w/l don't really count do they.
RT
Guest
Actually in the last 20 years the wallabies have won 16 times. That's one every 1.25 years. Based on recent numbers we would be due a number of wins. Once every 4 years interesting but not right.
taylorman
Roar Guru
But completely neutral since 1991 NZ versus Oz its 2-2. Just world cups- neutral its 1-0 to Oz. Not sure those results are comprehensive. Much of a muchness really.
Paul from Melbourne
Guest
You can discount Hong Kong because they are dead rubbers. You can also discount 91 because it is too far back. I don't care if you discount Tokyo or not, it doesn't mean that much. The only Stats that matters is that Wallablies win once every 4 years, and they've already done that. So they are not due for a win until 2019.