Yes, the rules were set. Doesn’t mean they are right or the best way to do it.
The value of how points are scored is already set by the value given, ie 5 for a try, 3 for a penalty, 2 for a conversion, three for a drop goal. Without ‘bonus’ points, the value of a win, a loss and a draw is ascertained only by the score in each game, using the established points per score method as defined by the laws of the game. To then impose some artificial and arbitrary ’bonus’ points scheme, effectively on top of the real points, a system which has the potential, as it has in this competition, to decide the winner, and elevate the value of ‘bonus’ points above real points, in search of a method to control how teams score their points, is downright silly, fake, superficial and shallow. A draw is one of three possible results and the tournament rules allocate table points for each of those three, win, draw, loss, in the order of value, completely appropriately and logically, descending, from the highest value, a win, 1/2 of that value, a draw, which is not a win and not a loss, and the zero value, a loss. If you want to banish draws, bonus points have no effect, that argument is a complete red herring.
This is test rugby and the Pumas (and England in the RWC) have clearly demonstrated the value of playing a hard defensive game where the strategy is to impose an impregnable barrier on the opposition’s ability to score. It is just as valid a strategy as any other, has provided two of the most memorable results in the last 2 years, results which have marketed the game far better than some fake ‘bonus’ points system, and is a demonstration of what true test rugby is all about: Disarming your opponents weapons and maximising the value of your own.
If you want the artificial, marketing man invention of fake ‘bonus’ points (I don’t), then loss-draw-win points of 0-3-6 works better so that the artificial bonus points of one point for a small loss and one point for ‘three tries’ are better balanced with the overall result.

Umm, a draw earns 2, a win 4. And a loss is literally, demonstrably, obviously and clearly a bigger fail than a draw.
The size of the win is totally irrelevant, artificial, false and misleading. This is test match rugby.
The All Blacks will not be the team with the best win/loss record in this tournament. Yet, with no finals and only three teams, they still win?

The team that wins will have 2 wins, one draw and one loss for the tri-nations v the ABs with 2 LOSES and 2 wins. Speaks for itself. This is test match rugby.

Yes, the rules were set. Doesn’t mean they are right or the best way to do it.
If you want bonus points (I don’t), then loss-draw-win points of 0-3-6 works better so that the artificial bonus points of one point for a small loss and one point for ‘three tries’ are better balanced with the overall result.
The value of how points are scored is already set by the value given, ie 5 for a try, 3 for a penalty, 2 for a conversion, three for a drop goal. Without ‘bonus’ points, the value of a win, a loss and a draw is ascertained only by the score in each game, using the established points per score method as defined by the laws of the game. To then impose some artificial and arbitrary ’bonus’ points scheme, effectively on top of the real points, a system which has the potential, as it has in this competition, to decide the winner, and elevate the value of ‘bonus’ points above real points, in search of a method to control how teams score their points, is downright silly, fake, superficial and shallow.
This is test rugby and the Pumas (and England in the RWC) have clearly demonstrated the value of playing a hard defensive game where the strategy is to impose an impregnable barrier on the opposition’s ability to score. It is just as valid a strategy as any other, has provided two of the most memorable results in the last 2 years, results which have marketed the game far better than some fake ‘bonus’ points system, and is a demonstration of what true test rugby is all about: Disarming your opponents weapons and maximising the value of your own.

Yes, fair enough. Nice article, by the way. 😁

Geoff, come on, pretty much every hard core rugby supporter knows exactly which team is no 1. And certainly everyone with a casual interest or no real interest, is interested in who holds the No 1 ranking, on occasions when they discuss or consider the game. It does matter, a lot. Huge for a particular countries marketing, reputation and standing.
I think it is only New Zealanders who suddenly ‘don’t take much notice’ and only when their team isn’t No 1. 😂
Go the Boks! No one will be beating them in 2020. 😂

Ha, ha, nice build up to the next RWC. 😁

Gotta win. It is the only thing that matters.

Yep. And I am predicting a score of 104-3 this week. Just not sure which team gets 104 yet. That will give either team the Cup. It will require the Pumas to score at least one try. And 33 penalties.

Your opening paragraph shows the inappropriateness of using bonus points to decide a winner. In SR and the RWC there are finals, in the case of the RWC, 7 games of finals, to decide the winner. Bonus points suck. Happy to go to head to head then head to head points difference, etc in the case of teams on the same points at the end. But this is just plain wrong.

ABs were superb. But let’s face it, outside of very good defence, this Puma B team had very little else. I think even the Wallabies would have scrapped home against them.
Not taking anything away from the Nuns, they were completely dominant and will put a big score on any team not playing at a very high level.

I think it is pretty clear that the forearm impacting the head with significant force is a deliberate part of the clean out. Not really ‘swinging’, but used to help move the player out of the way. Yellow, yes. Red, nah.

Yes, they did dominate the whole game. I thought they played very well. What else would you expect against the Puma B team? I predicted a 38 point margin and that didn’t need a lot of analysis.

I don’t really know why anyone would think that the ABs could lose against the Puma reserves. That would be a fanciful, ridiculous, absurd, preposterous. imaginary, illusory, make-believe, mythical, fairy tale.
Are AB supporters really that insecure? Get a grip! ABs by 38. That is what they beat the Wallaby B team by. Without really trying.

No, silly. The ABs put 38 on the Wallaby B team.

Puma B team. ABs by 38.

Got to do something about the Puma tactic of a player going down for attention every time there is a defensive scrum or lineout. For a lineout it should be play on. If a player is on their feet before the stoppage they should be expected to walk off for treatment. Not plonk themselves down in a place that prevents play from continuing.
For scrums it is more difficult. Not sure how you stop a forward dropping almost dead as soon as the defensive scrum is called. Then, always a miraculous recovery!

It’s the Puma ‘B’ team then. Doesn’t that mean an AB win means nothing? 😂

Nicholas, you are the professional rugby analyst in this conversation. We are the posters invited to express our opinion. You are the one in a position to trawl through piles of statistics to find some that support your conclusions. And maybe to ignore others that don’t? Or not to include other statistics that show strengths and weaknesses in other important areas?
That is the thing with statistics isn’t it. Look narrowly enough and isolate certain figures and you can support an argument.
But what of other factors like size and weight? How do these have a more subtle impact on a game, e.g. the effort required to tackle a bigger man or the added force of impact on a ruck or maul? And what else do these players bring that is not captured in your analysis? Is Fardy really the ultimate judge of what skills and attributes are required? Could he have a bias towards those that he himself possesses?
Like I said, a very interesting analysis, but narrow and somewhat one-sided.
You would make a good barrister.

Ok, that gives property comparable statistics. Why did you include these in the article?
First, it shows that Hannigan has a significantly better tackle percentage. That is a very important stat.
Second, it shows that Wright has significantly more lineout steals. But this can obviously be misleading. Players have different roles to perform in the lineout and while Wright may be in a position (literally and strategically) to focus on steals, would anyone really argue that Hannigan isn’t the overall best lineout jumper of these three? He often competes with the best jumpers (not so much in this year’s Wallaby games) and is highly successful. Wright’s steal are valuable but Hannyalso brings some lineout expertise that is very worthwhile.
Third it shows that Wight has a significantly higher rate of tackle turnovers and no one can argue with that. He is clearly better than the other two on that stat. However, again, there are other impacts to consider, and Swinton had the All Blacks looking up and hesitating before he was sent off, in a game the Wallabies won, something Wright will not achieve.
Each of these players brings something different, and I am certainly not convinced that Wright is necessarily the best option for his tackle steal alone.
As for blindside defence, that is up to the coach to allocate responsibility. I think any of these three could cover that task and Hannigan would probably miss less first up tackles.
I dunno, Wright is also significantly smaller, what impact that that have (or not have)? Is that even statistically measurable? Bigger men have long been valued in rugby, is that now not a thing because of a reliance on narrowly defined statistics?

No disrespect Nick, but these articles are always well written, well researched and very well presented with video illustrations, but they are never about a balanced assessment. You get material that confirms the articles narrative. Not an even handed appraisal. Still great reading, one of the best rugby analysts and rugby writers in the world, but don’t just blindly accept his conclusions. In this piece the stats may be misleading and do not have much probative value as they do not use the most comparative data available for these players. Maybe the SRAU figures confirm the conclusions but until we see that info, we don’t know.

To make it fair. The points difference between a losing team and a draw isn’t enough. Should be loss, Zero, Draw 3, Win 6. So one point for a bonus point loss. Seven for a bonus point win.

Nick’s articles are always interesting. What I like about your approach, is you identify the positive, neutral and negative plays. It helps create a very accurate picture.

Nice work Harry. Very interesting and shows Simmons is underrated by many, but not his coaches.

Exactly. If you are going to give bonus points to losers, whereby they get one point for a loss, a draw should be worth 3 instead of 2. The bonus point for ‘not losing by more than 7’ is built in.