At the elite level of competition that is the Vodacom Super 14, the margins between victory and defeat are impossibly small, requiring that every avenue be explored in pursuit of success.
In preparation for matches, coaches, analysts and players will spend hours pouring over video and statistics in an attempt to identify opponents’ strengths, weaknesses and style of play, searching for those elusive advantages.
Similarly, they will conduct post-match “post-mortems”, looking for half a dozen areas that may bring victory in close matches.
For coaches, analysing specific incidents and players in isolated matches is enormously valuable – insightful analysis helps craft game-plans and strategies to neutralize opponents and maximise chances of victory.
For scientific purposes, however, a collection of matches provides more value, for it reveals global trends that affect the outcome of close matches.
The latest research on rugby performance has evaluated results from 95 close matches in the Super 14 since 2003 to identify what factors are associated with success.
These matches are won or lost by fewer than 11 points – any smaller than this and it becomes impossible to find differences, so fine is the line between success and failure.
The findings, while predating the introduction from the ELVs, are interesting, somewhat contradicting the “prevailing wisdom” about rugby.
It turns out that the winning team in close matches will have:
· Kicked the ball more in open play. Teams who win average 15.7 kicks per match, losing teams kick 13.6 times per match
· Made more tackles than the losing team (113 tackles for winners compared to 99 for losing teams)
· Had fewer rucks and mauls (60 for winners, 68 for losers)
· Completed fewer passes (81 per match compared to 90 per match)
· Conceded more turnovers (24 for winners, 22.4 for losers)
· Made fewer errors (Winners make 11.7 per match, losers 13)
The first five points may seem counter-intuitive, but they throw up an interesting implication, which is that the team that has less of the ball is more likely to win close matches.
Review that list again – in close matches, the team who has: kicked the ball more, made more tackles, had fewer rucks and mauls, and completed fewer passes, has won close matches. Looked at differently, it says that teams who keep the ball in hand, pass it more often, and who force the opposition to tackle are less likely to win.
Again, this was before the ELVs, which were designed, in part, to change this. It will be interesting to see their effect. My initial observations are that not much has changed, apart from ball in play time, which has increased. But victory, at first glance, still seems to belong to the team that has had less of the ball.
The causes of this are likely numerous – increased size and speed of players, which favours defence; increased defensive organization courtesy game analysis and the introduction of ideas from rugby league; and increased athleticism of players, which enables defending teams to compete for and slow the ball down at breakdowns, reorganize better and render the opposition’s possession less effective.
Remember also that these are trends over 95 matches, and represent averages, which means that they don’t guarantee the outcome of every match. For example, kicking is not guaranteed to win matches – the chase, the defence and the tactical awareness of a team must be superior in order for this strategy to be effective.
Knowing when to kick, and doing so effectively is key. Similarly, a defence that is poorly organized will lose if they adopt this strategy. However, if these aspects are superior, then this team is more likely to win than the team who control possession, take the ball through more phases and pass more.
Certainly, much of the success of the Springboks and our Super 14 teams in recent years has been built around a style of play that capitalises on this phenomenon, which is actually not new to coaches, who have taken advantage of it for a few years. Possession is certainly not gold in modern rugby – defensive pressure is.
The possession paradigm remains, however, and commentators and analysts often look at possession and territory statistics during broadcasts and comment with surprise on the statistic that the team winning the match has had so much less of the ball, and has made so many more tackles than the losing team. The latest research suggests that they should not be surprised at all. Whether the game should be concerned is another matter – few sports favour the team without the ball, but rugby appears to be growing more and more in this direction.
Ross Tucker has PhD in Exercise Physiology from the UCT Faculty of Health Sciences and is currently a member of Paul Treu’s SA Sevens management team.
Ed’s note: However, it seems not everyone is in agreement that attacking rugby wins matches. Famed schoolboy coach, Basil Bey, provides an alternative argument in his column. Read next Post
This makes for very interesting reading thanks Super!!
· Had fewer rucks and mauls (60 for winners, 68 for losers)
· Completed fewer passes (81 per match compared to 90 per match)
These 2 points make me wonder, executing the final objective (to score)better will automatically make it a shorter time you have possession. If the job can be finished in 9 phases why try 16?
Thats were your quality of players will also shorten you phases or time with the ball. For the Lions to break trough might take longer than the star studded Stormers backs. Just a thought.
Baie interessant MAAR… daar is baie veranderlikes, soos…
* die ou reels
* nuwer ELV’s
* nuwe intrepetasies van ou reels
* spanne wat bekend is daarvoor om swakker te wees onder hoe bal sal meer
teen geskop word en omgekeerd.
* ens ens ens…
Ek dink soms die analiste wil dinge te ingewikkeld maak.
Die groot argument is aanval teenoor verdediging…
En dit maak nie saak vanuit watter hoek jy daarna kyk nie…as jy vyf tree vorentoe en drie tree terug en jou opponent die omgekeerde van 3 vorentoe, vyf terug, gaan jy eerste by die wenpaal wees. M.a.w. of jou verdediging/aanval goed of sleg is die basiese beginsel bly doodeenvoudig om meer punte aan te teken as jou opponent 😆
Verseker kan elke span na elke vertoning of elke paar vetonings weer alles in oenskou neem en kyk in watter areas hulle kan verbeter,en almal glo ek doen dit…
Maar om die tipe stellings te maak soos Allister is in my opinie ,slegs dit…’n opinie.
Weereens ‘n opinie van my… huidiglik glo ek die Bulle sal ‘n game teen die Stormers wen waar albei huidiglik verskillende sterkpunte het i.t.v. verdediging en aanval…
Die vraag is, wie gaan eerste alby fasette so naby aan perfeksie bring na hul onderskeie vermoeens…
Tyd sal leer, maar Allister sal dalk net sy opinie moet verander…
‘n Voorbeeld vir my is bv. die Bokke wat op ‘n stadium (toevallig toe Allister betrokke was) baie “games” gewen het op verdediging…
Waar ander “games” tussen die Franse en ander spanne onder andere die All Blacks baie keer hoe tellings was maar bloot op die aanval deur die Franse gewen is.( Hulle het baie punte afgestaan, maar bloot op die ou ent meer aangeteken)….
Sorry…
I see post 3 & 4 are under the wrong thread, I’ll post it there aswell…
#2 Super,I have always wondered why commentators and TV analysts always complain about a team that scores in 5 or less phases, saying that they need to build phases. I agree that if you can score in fewer phases, why not? How many times does a team take the ball through the phases only to lose possession due to a handling error or infringement?
There are definitely times in a match when possession and phases are needed, but why try and build phases when a gap opens up and you can make that break to either score or carry the ball further up and put someone else away to score?
6@ Lion4ever – Absolutely…After all the main objective of building phases is to crack through the oppositions defences…
If you can break through earlier – why not?
6
L4E, imagine 5 meters from the line PS gets n ball, would you prefer him setting up n phase or plant the ball behind the line. Also Danie Roussouw and ……
SuperBul
Jy bietjie af vandag ? Sien jy hang vroeg hier rond 😆
blouste @ 9
nou nie asof jy veel werk nie, of hoe sê ek?
Asgat…
Hoe gannit?
Was bietjie besig man…besig,besig,besig !!!
Geluk met julle game die naweek !!!
Stormpies het my verras.
Nou waar is almal nou?
Toemaar…Ashley is weg…julle kan nou weer uit julle gate kruip… 😆
gbs
Kan ons nie weer die “reply button” terug kry nie?
Wazzup !!!!????
O ja Blouste ek loaf vandag
Mooi man, mens moet nou en dan !!!
😆
Ek dink ek moet n positiewe Bulls post opsit , sien op news24 hap hulle nog die WP manne, een ou reken die Stormers moet Nuweland, the Stadium of False Hope noem.
@16
😆
Moet se die Stormpies het my nou offisieel impress… 😯
MAAR…Natuurlik sal die BULLE hulle nog vat !!! 👿
Possession not everything ?
Die Bulle ‘possess’ die CB.
Die Bulle ‘possess’ die S14.
Die Bokke ‘possess’ die 3N.
Die Bokke ‘possess’ die WB.
Natuurlik is ‘possession everything’ !
😀
Kyk die Stormers is seker nou in jaar 3 of 4 van hul strukture bou. Seker moeilik om iets te bou daar met die wind. Kyk selfs Rassie se disco het weggewaai. So hulle moet die jaar iets wen.
Ek dink nou dat daai Greenpoint Staduim sal n moerse nice disco maak.
19: LOL !
Users Online
Total 39 users including 0 member, 39 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,498,101 Page Impressions
_