Interesting piece of analysis Bentnuc. I’m still sceptical of straight frequency data for assessing individual (or team) performance in rugby, but it is telling us something – clearly there is some correlation between xP for example and our subjective analysis of performance as your numbers show.

Frequency data still misses a lot of information – e.g. multi-phase or multi-action play. For example, how do you measure the participation of the fly-half in a kicking duel for field position, or kicking to manipulate the opposition defensive line in order to subsequently launch a counter-attack (something France have been adept at)? How much of the result is the system (learn the system, and any half-decent player would get the result) and how much is the player?

So, I’m not sure the “money ball” style indicators are the way to go in rugby, but making the attempt is definitely worth it to find out – love your work 😊 . BTW out of interest where did you get the stats data from for your analysis?

Thanks for the clarification – you are right to highlight it. I had forgotten that Speight was subject to exactly this consequence in 2011. It makes any issues around NZ players playing super rugby in Australia less problematic – a small tweak to the eligibility rules to require 1. NZ (tax) residency/playing your club and NPC rugby in NZ, and 2. being eligible for SRP in NZ or Australia (or a variation on the theme), would do it.

Question is, do we (and NZR) want to do it?

Great point regarding player welfare – and WR may easily find themselves forced into this type of set-up in order to manage the game’s legal exposure to concussion. A world club competition – if it ever happens – could be an opportunity to implement something like this, as it would place all participating teams in the same boat. However as you say the clubs won’t be pleased and will resist however they can.

Well argued, JD – difficult to disagree. Especially given, as you point out, NZ rugby has been reasonably successful so far with retaining players – we don’t need to push the panic button just yet. Whilst relaxing the overseas rule would result in a stronger AB side in the short term, there is no guarantee that it will result in a stronger AB side longer term.
There are some arguments for opening up eligibility to players in Super Rugby, but again there are challenges. NZ Rugby will of course want to avoid young NZ players, who could eventually be ABs, moving to Australia, playing for 5 years, and being picked for the Wallabies. Australia will also want to avoid the reverse – we should not underestimate the attractiveness of a black jersey for an ambitious young Australian player. Especially those with familial links to NZ.
A “prevention clause” signed by NZR and RA might be legally problematic – you could argue it is a restraint of trade or anti-competitive. However, a limited eligibility relaxation governed by an agreed RA – NZR policy might work. For example allowing say a 2-year window (you can play for an Australian SR side and be eligible for the ABs for 2 years. If you play a test for the ABs, the 2 year window resets). This is a bit clunky as far as rules go, but something like this could ensure that players who harbour ambitions of playing for their respective national sides return to their country of origin prior to becoming eligible for the other. In any case, it should be made very clear what such a rule (if there is one) is for, and what it is not. Do we really want our young players moving to an Australian SR side? Or would we prefer that some established players could play several seasons for an Australian side, opening up opportunities for younger NZ players in NZ and concurrently improving the competitiveness of the Australian teams?
Outside of that, I think there may be opportunities for NZR-organised/blessed NH sabbaticals, similar to the Japanese set-up. There are definite benefits to releasing e.g. a Savea to play in France for a couple of seasons before returning, and for opening up pathways in the opposite direction – Alldritt having a season for the Canes, for example?
This has turned into a long comment – sorry!

Oops, I stuffed that editing up, try again…
Well, the chiefs had 3 AB starters in the forward pack (Taukei’aho, Retallick, Cane) vs Crusaders 1 (Whitelock), with the Crusaders having 2 reserves (Barrett, Taylor) and a possible reserve (Moody) and the Chiefs 2 more with quite a bit of test experience (Vaa’i and Jacobson) – so if the Crusaders had pretty much an AB forward pack then the Chiefs had even a bit more of an AB forward pack 😛 Pedantry aside 😊, like you I’m curious (hopeful?) as to what changes to the lineup Razor will make, with some younger players in key positions starting to make a mark in SRP this year.

— COMMENT DELETED —

Would be great if we could have more variety in playing style in SRP – imagine the Reds or the Landers implementing a Leinster-like game plan, or the Force going for monster-pack-and-counter-attack. Unfortunately we end up with a convergence of styles – not sure how good it would be career-wise for a coach to run an atypical game plan. Plus it’s hard(er) to get selected for higher honours if your SRP team is playing very differently from your national team. Any ideas as to how it could happen 😛?
Interesting if Schmidt ends up running the Blues next year – could we then start to see something a little different?

Completely agree Highlander. As we’ve all seen, in broken play and with space BB has a rare skill to break a team open by himself – see the chip-and-grubber at the weekend. But at international level against top teams that space almost never exists, and he hasn’t shown the ability (inclination?) to run and execute a plan.

Will be interesting to see who has the final say in AB selection. I can’t see Schmidt preferring BB as you say, but he fits Foster’s, um, more unstructured approach. Will be one of the key tells I think of whose team the ABs are this year.

Thought he was very lazy on D at the weekend. That and his poor positioning are like hanging out a “score tries here” sign.

Really pleased to see Mikaele-Tu’u back for you guys at the weekend. I would not like to have to tackle him.

BB looks confused about what his role is, what he wants it to be, what the Blues want it to be, and what he thinks Foster wants it to be. He seems to think that he should be a 10, but also that he sort of knows his best performances have been at 15 (most of his best performances at 10 have been in fairly loose games where he’s had the time and space at 10 to play like he’s at 15). And so he ends up playing indecisively at 10 with the sideways shuffle pass and up&under being the result. The run-around and inconsistent selection and messaging at AB level that both he and Mo’unga have been subjected to over the last 4 years have not helped. Are we witnessing one of the most outstanding talents of his generation being (partially) ruined by poor and inconsistent coaching?

Thanks JD – couldn’t find anything with my (cursory) google search earlier, so good to know. Hope he’s back soon – I’ve always enjoyed watching him play when his mind is on the game.

The Borg 😂 . As someone who spent his first 1,5 decades in the Tron and his second in the Borg hive I am in the enviable position of supporting both the Borg and the Federation. I’m the exception that proves the rule that such a thing should not be possible.

I haven’t been Sam Cane’s biggest fan the past 18 months but he is outplaying all other NZ 7s in SRP so far. I haven’t seen the stats but he seems to me to be carrying more than in the past couple of years – or at least more effectively, which makes it seem like his metres have increased. Let’s hope he carries on his form, stays injury free and keeps the jewels locked safely in a box.

Good points re: Ioane. My Tuesday morning pre-coffee brain had forgotten the points turn-around when he came on vs the Crusaders. Btw does the roar crowd know what has happened to Ioane? Is he injured, or has Gatland replaced him in the Chiefs’ pecking order? A huge but unfortunately hugely inconsistent talent.

Thanks Highlander, on the money as usual. You’re a diamond in the sloppy muck that passes for most NZ rugby commentary and analysis. We pride ourselves on being best at all things rugby, but the majority of analysis published in the NZ media is stupefyingly bad. I’ve lived outside NZ for over 20 years now so am somewhat out of touch, but if it is indicative of how the game is thought about by those that play and coach it in NZ then no wonder we are slipping down the rankings.

Interesting comments on DMac. I thought in rounds 1&2 he had seemingly solved a few of his issues at 10 – he played within himself, manipulated his backline attack pretty well, and orchestrated a functional kicking game. But the since then the sideways running etc has surfaced more and more often. There were several occasions vs the Blues where the Chiefs entire backline essentially just stopped as they had no idea what was going on. Perhaps it’s impatience on his part – if plan A doesn’t work to break the opposition open, out comes the sideways running. Teams have learned on D to not break alignment and just wait for him, so it is less successful than it was in 2016. He clearly has it in him – perhaps just a bit more patience and a bit more experience will see him solve this. A really interesting challenge for both player and coach.

Will join the rest and say great article Highlander – I look forward to reading these each week.

It’s more than a little worrying that the Blues, with the backup AB first five and the incumbent centre, plus a recently selected AB 2nd 5 have no apparent ability to run any consistent, organised attack – and hence have to rely on unstructured turnover ball and great feet from Telea. Is it just me or has Barrett’s sideways shoulder turn and shuffle before passing to his outside gotten worse this year? Whatever the reason, he looks increasingly lost. His forte has always been in unstructured play – and I had expected the increased ball in play time (and resulting fatigue) this year would have helped him, but the reverse seems to be the case.

The Chiefs Blues clash will be interesting – can DM take his opportunity to supplant BB as AB first five #2?

Frustrating, but better than the alternative – that Foster is a selection genius and his current AB squad is as good as it gets…

“ He can’t run through a wet paper bag or a 152cm Japanese child. ”

Have you sounded out Boris Johnson? I hear he’s available.

I agree with you re: Levi Aumua – his ball-in-hand attack game fits the “new” AB attack, and he looks more than capable of the step up from domestic rugby. He just looks like he just has time. And he has all the physical attributes required. Unfortunately based overseas I get limited access to npc games – what is his kicking game looking like?

I wonder if this is a result of having had the new assistants more or less forced on him. The earlier models owed their jobs to Foster. Foster owes his job to Schmidt and Ryan (to an extent). Meaning Fosterball doesn’t have a free reign. I’m clutching at this straw, anyway.

As long as they don’t start high-fiving. It’s dangerous, the high five.

Now just to fix his passing to his outsides… still has a tendency still to pass high or at the shoulder/slightly behind. But as long as he runs like that, almost anything can be forgiven

Good comments Coker – i agree we should temper the Hallelujas with a little pepper… Regarding the lack of turnovers, it is a worry. My impression though (without a deep dive into the stats) is that the teams with higher/more effective turnover results are achieving it in part via numbers somewhat lower than 7 – and in particular 1, 2 and 3 (and particularly 2). Samisoni has been fantastic so far, but this is one area it would be great if he could work on. Perhaps it reflects a change in the open side role over the past few years, as well as Cane’s specific strengths and weaknesses.

NZR got suckered into believing the success 2005-2015 was down to them – their systems, coaching continuity, etc, when in retrospect it was largely down to a bunch of exceptional players. In 2015 it was said anyone could coach the ABs and win, probably correctly.

Unfortunately this has lead to a poor set up of the game in NZ, arrogance towards our partners and the sanzaar unions, and poor decision making by the board and NZR in general. Cumulating in the continuity appointment of Foster, because “continuity works”, apparently. Forgetting of course that correlation is not causation.

So, now we have an NPC where sieve-like defence is the norm, and super rugby where every team seeks to play a variation on a standard theme and where forward power is largely absent because you don’t need it to win. Feeding into an ABs environment where winning is simply expected, but not earned.

It’s not all Foster’s fault. Doesn’t mean he is a good coach though.