While the tournament is not over yet, with four rounds of Super Rugby Trans-Tasman elapsed, we can firmly say that the New Zealand teams have far outperformed their Australian counterparts in various aspects of the game.
Let’s go directly to the relationship that we can establish between the number of tries and the points in dispute. In Round 1, Rebels-Blues gave an exaggerated measure for the projection of the strengths of the game.
The match ended 50-3 in favour of the Blues and yielded a difference of 47 points: so far, the largest margin of the Trans-Tasman. In that same order, it is followed by the 36-point margin in favour of the Highlanders in their clash against the Waratahs.
With an average of 35 points, the differences favour the New Zealand sides. On average, the differences of the Australians, who counted on the victories of the Reds and Brumbies, are presented at -5 points – it’s a difficult image to tolerate, right?
New Zealand teams have boosted their performance since the beginning of Trans-Tasman.
If we take the last Super Rugby Aotearoa as a parameter and focus on the result of the fixed formations, we see that there would not be too many differences in terms of effectiveness, since lineouts and scrums remained more or less stable.
But when working on the breakdown, we noticed an activity of clear improvement with an improvement of 2 per cent between both tournaments.
This situation of control and stabilisation of the game from the contact has shown its most evident side in the relationship of effectiveness between the occasions that the opponent’s line of 22 is exceeded and the number of tries converted on such occasions.
The average is 55.3 per cent effectiveness for the Kiwis, versus 39.7 per cent for the Aussies. The graph below shows the distribution of this relationship among the New Zealand teams.
Having consolidated the contact situations in Trans-Tasman, the progress of the New Zealand teams in the attack phases that could carry over to the next Test matches of the All Blacks (versus Italy and combined Fiji) should be focused around the instances of lineout and scrum as platforms.
But let’s go back one more time to contact situations. In some comments made on The Roar, I pointed out the categorical control of the game from the breakdown by the New Zealand teams, losing the ball every 30 rucks executed versus 16 by the Australians.
Is it likely that the different physical preparation of the sides has this shocking consequence, or is it simply the abilities and skills that each player is gifted with?
In this breakdown, the Blues are clear leaders, leading the way with 37 successful rucks before handing over control of the ball to the opponent and strengthening the principle of continuity in the game, a fact that contrasts with the 15 control rucks that the Rebels provide.
With just one game remaining and aiming to position themselves for a vibrant finale, the Blues, Highlanders and Crusaders are candidates for the first Trans-Tasman title.
In the meantime, the Australian sides must work to close the gap between them and the New Zealanders in the best possible way.
No one promised them a rose garden…
taylorman
Roar Guru
With this sort of clear cut gulf in standard, it’s obviously the issue lies in grass roots rugby. For me not a lot of point analysing the comparison at the top level after they’ve come through the ranks and produce such a wide gap. By design, these are the best rugby players these sides are able to extract from the lower levels of rugby, on both sides of the Tasman. If all the energy is spent improving the top level ‘after they get there’ the gains will be minimal. Sure they have to do that anyway if even just to justify paying them. But without improved lower tier rugby, an entire challenge again, the threshold into Super rugby will remain low, and the vicious circle repeats. It’s an ongoing issue for Oz rugby with the other sports going on, but even this small absence from contact with higher standards due to Covid, the complacency has crept in quickly.
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Hello Chufortah ...! The dominant pattern for kicking game says that when we receive the ball in the back of the field we must re-execute the kick and return the ball to the opposite field or try the transfer until recovering the lost meters and try to break the advantage line. By not having excellent kickers, Australians are conservative and deepen the first option, aiming only to optimize the Possession / territory ratio. Risking options in the game and coming out victorious takes time to prepare. I think the Australian sides don't have that greater propensity to take risks. The payoff in these types of situations is often low.
Chufortah
Guest
The biggest difference is the ability of Kiwi teams to run for space. On kick receptions, they have at least 3-4 players ready to go at space. They expect the offload. They don’t fluff their kicks to touch to make 5m instead of 20m. They don’t do stupid handshakes. It all comes down to smarts. Australian rugby is very dumb, mostly playing heads down rugby. It’s painful to watch.... but when the fog lifts and we play heads up rugby it’s a pleasure to watch. The Wallabies will compete this year but when all Kiwi provinces play like the ABs, it seems this gets them over the line come big game time through practice and an instinct developed from playing the same way at provincial levels.
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Hello Moaman ...! I think that Crusaders comes in a kind of stabilization of their game. His defense is being much more compromised despite his dominance of the breakdown. Obviously TransTasman offers Crusaders against the Australian teams the possibility of improving some aspects from a numerical point of view. The pending issue is still defense and changes could come with the search for new talent and new additions to the team.
moaman
Roar Guru
Note also the relative mediocrity of T he Crusaders compared to the other NZ sides......
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Hi how are you…! This series of indicators are part of a set that evaluates the ‘Game Management’. Therefore, it does not delve into the success of the game measured in points. The point sets are indisputable and show NZL’s superiority. On the other hand, we can see that there is no Australian team that does not have an encouraging perspective in some indicator of the game. Australia’s drawbacks stem from flawed decision-making and flawed execution. In this regard, I think that the game plans are a direct consequence of the available talent.
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
everything is usually possible my friend ...!
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Are they playing Running Rugby ? Do you think ? If so where did they learn it ? Was it Link McKenzie while he was contracted to pump s… uphill in Christchurch ? Did his give our secret to NZ ?
Republican
Guest
Perhaps it's as simple as this ' UNION proportionally is a code of low status compared to not only other footy brands but codes across the board in Oz. The GR do not attract the cream of potential athletes as they do in NZ proportionally speaking. That won't get better while League is going the same way here hence a disproportionate number of Kiwis & P I s in our NRL.
Dean
Guest
Can't help but noticing that Tahs are ranked higher in ruck continuity stats than all other Australian teams and two of the NZ teams. Apparently the Tahs have also scored more points than all other Australian teams, and one of the NZ teams. Seemingly ruck continuity and scoring points are not necessarily good indicators of match success?
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Hello Puff...! Excellent analogy for the garden and weeds ...! These skills and abilities recovery processes take time. I think it is time to bet on the future by revisiting the mistakes of the past.
Puff
Roar Rookie
Regrettably a rose garden we have not, the trick is how to weed the garden while safeguarding against further damage. Creative skills are the trademark of NZ teams and they don’t acquire those at super level. We need to stop been delusional and start investing in the most productive age groups.