Tri nation team game statistics.

Following up on my article about the urban myth that SA only kicks, whereas in fact everyone kicks, Taylorman thought it would be interesting to see some more details n how many times the backs played the ball, forwards etc.

Basically a more comprehensive analysis of what teams do with the ball. Because it is rather hard work, I thought it prudent to do the three Tri Nation team to see a clear picture as they are the two teams we are supposedly in stark contrast to as game play is concerned.

Here are the average statistics per match from the last 9 tests.

New Zealand
Possession
From Scrums 8
From Line outs 9
From breakdowns 79
From this they have 23 kicks, 144 passes and 105 runs
The forwards ran the ball 55 times and the backs 50 times
The forwards made 25 passes and the backs 120 passes
The All Blacks make 11 offloads per match
Clean breaks and defenders beaten were 17 per match.

Australia
Possession
From Scrums 5
From line outs 9
From breakdowns 72
From this they have 24 kicks, 136 passes and 98 runs
The forwards ran the ball 49 times and the backs 49 times
The forwards made 22 passes and the backs 114 passes
The Wallabies make 10 offloads per match
Clean breaks and defenders beaten were 16 per match

South Africa
Possession
From Scrums 7
From line outs 12
From breakdowns 77
From this they have 27 kicks, 114 passes and 94 runs
The forwards ran the ball 53 times and the backs 41 times
The forwards made 13 passes and the backs 98 passes
The Springboks make 4 offloads per match
Clean breaks and defenders beaten were 9 per match

From these statistics it shows me that New Zealand and Australia are more creative in their back lines, but we knew that before we even started. They make more than twice the offloads per match we do, they kick slightly less, their defenders beaten and line breaks are exactly in relation to their offloads. so they are more creative in their back lines.

So in summary I would say we lack creativity and some innovation in our back play, but then South Africans like the in your face rugby, and I doubt that will change soon, perhaps a new coach can address these issues.

South Africa are in my eyes one of the best teams for pressure building in phase play. They dont have the creativity of some other sides but they sap the energy out of teams with ball control and field position.

Good stats Bilton

Cooooool Biltong. Amazing read.

Thanks for doing that. Must have taken a while. Is this from the ESPN match pack stuff or is it tabled as above somehow. Mind boggles when you think of the sort of data the squads were collating on a full time basis over several months.

Very similar in terms of posession with SA edging out in the lineouts- something I think GH with this side is trying to address- fair bit of height across the AB's this time.

As you say far fewer passes suggesting its not going through the hands as much and therefore potential for line breaks or beating defenders. Thats the sort of thing that will change post world cup and if these numbers continue through SA's world cup it would be one hell of an effort to win it with.

Yes it is from ESPN.scrum.com, It does take a while to compile, you have to go into every individual match and compile from there

Thanks for that. Still a lot of similarities between all 3 teams in terms of possession.
Gotta wonder how they colect this stuff. Are there official stat collectors at test matches counting all the passes kicks etc?

What I appreciate about these statistics is that they are only over a short period of the last 9 tests. i get both bored and confused with some people that quote stats for decades, and the picture becomes blurred,not only by time but rule changes,etc,etc.
i am somewhat surprised not only how equal everyone is ,but also I would have thought that Australian backs pass figure would be the highest.

Thanks for the stats Biltong. Just reading between the lines there the NZ and Aus forwards both pass 45% as much as they run, the SA forwards only 24%. So it's generally a safe bet when playing the boks that if a forward has the ball there's little chance he's going to pass it.

Taylorman wrote:
As you say far fewer passes suggesting its not going through the hands as much and therefore potential for line breaks or beating defenders. Thats the sort of thing that will change post world cup and if these numbers continue through SA's world cup it would be one hell of an effort to win it with.

SA against all comers last 10 tests 1.8 per match.
SA against Tri Nation opponents since 2008, 1.8 per match.
SA before new breakdown and tackle laws in Tri Nations 1.9 tries per match.
SA after new breakdown and tackle laws in Tri Nations 1.6 tries per match.

NZ against all comers last 10 tests 4.1 tries per match.
NZ against Tri Nation opponents since 2008, 2.7 tries per match.
NZ before new breakdwon and tackle laws in Tri Nation 2.1 tries per match.
NZ after new breakdown and tackle laws in Tri Nation 3.4 tries per match.

OZ against all comers last 10 tests, 3 tries per match.
OZ against Tri Nation opponents sonce 2008, 2.1 tries per match.
OZ before new breakdown ans tackle laws in Tri Nation, 1.8 tries per match.
OZ after new breakdown and tackle laws in Tri Nation, 2.4 tries per match.

From this you can see Sa has been consistent whether it be a Tri Nations match or any other opponent, they score 1.8 tries per match. The new breakdown and tackle laws have not affected their try scoring ability much, which would suggest that they are not benefiting from the faster game and I will put that down to the coach and his conservative style.

New Zealand on the other hand are shut down much better by their Tri nation opponents and there for score almost 1.5 tries less against them. They are definitely taking advantage of the new lwas, better than anyone else.

Australia is also restricted by their Tri Nation opponents by a try less per match than anyone else, but are getting some beneift out of the new laws.

The statistic of the tries per match includes the Tri Nation teams vs each other and would have a negative impact on the actual scoring vs other nations for NZ and Australia, so the impact of playing against their Tri Nation opponents will actually be higher if only the other team stats are taken into account.

The try scoring stat are slightly skewed due to the B team SA sent to australasia, NZ scored 6 tires and OZ scored 5 tries in those two matches.taking into consideration that they have each played 9 Tri Nation matches since the law changes, it wil impact the stats by roguhly .4 of a factor.

But it is very clear that NZ and OZ's coaching staff and players have embraced the new laws better than PDV and his players.

Good stats biltong.

What would be good, but I don't know if that ever was a stat, was how many times a back line got broken thru.

OzT, i did put that sat down, but combined linebreaks and defenders beaten just to simplify it.

NZ 17
OZ 16
SA 9

Ah no biltong, not how many they made but how many times their lines got pierced.

IT is great able to go thru the opps's lines, but how many times your line got cut thru woudl point at a good attack but poor defence.

I would expect there Oz to have had their lines breached the most.

Hi,Biltong intresting stats.linebreaks very pretty,BUT unless you finish them
ZILCH.Last week the Boks maybe in some cases ,more by luck than judgement stifled the All Blacks.
What some people can`t understand there are more than one way to win a match.
The side that produced during his 8 years as an All Black,legend mighty pack and the Boot of Don Clarke.Now talking about We`re All Blacks we only know one way to play.When it does`nt work they say the plan was right,we just did`nt execute it properly.
The Same coaches,were lamenting when they did`nt adapt and change because they did`nt have the wit to change the game plan.
Come the RWC ,they will be looking at the sides who took points as they come,instead of looking pretty.

Doesn't matter the type of gameplan, if it is shut down correctly teams lose.

No.s of tries scored in Clarkes days were pitiful. Matches were won with the boot more often that not. Clarkes 1959 6 penalty 18-17 win over the 4 try Lions serves as an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned and its only because we're AB supporters that we don't admit it.

Plus the conditions back then did not suit the fast rugby of today. Specifically because of the lack of drainage (or none to speak of) back then. Rain meant mud and bog, slow tracks and very difficult to get through without pace, and when combined with the comparative speed and fitness levels of the farmer/ city lawyer combinations of then to the athletes of today the low scoring is understandable.

Linebreaks mean chances to score and yes they dont always but with the AB's they usually do- last week being AN EXCEPTION, put down to some incredible scatter defence by the Boks, something I havnt seen, well, ever.

I reckon you have it all sussed with those stats Biltong. Clearly shows why AB's are leading the way on %win basis, and also why SA lose tests to those they shouldnt- their gameplan and inability to get across the line against relatively easier defences (looking at the non 3N team tries for- that looks like a clear choice not to adopt a more attacking game plan even though the Oz and AB stats confirm the opportunities are there) is costing them, something of a challenge for the new administration.

You at work already Taylorman? Yes I sincerely hope that SARU does something smart for a change and appoint a Bok coach that will bring some variation to our attack, in my view the only weakness in our make up.

I wouldn't like to see much change elsewhere, hopefully the next coach will be brave and decide that he has something special with Hougaard/Duvenhage and Pat Lambie

Yep. Back to non smartphone so easier to read. I see our new coach will be named by years end so hopefully we can give him a good retirement pension...

Heres his latest thinking's on leaving the players behind... is banking on taking the sting out of the expected 'Hit' that we got from Oz last year at Sydney after taking all the players to SA.

Alan perhaps its just not about the Wcup all the time. Gh is a very shrewd planner as we know and one scenario is if we got beat up in SA we could then have got beat up in Oz, losing it anyway.

For this we are now better prepared.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/5510076/Wallabies-coach-Deans-in-perpetual-check

Hi,Taylorman and Biltong the reasons for the All Blacks leading has little
to do with HOW they play.Since 1996 and the 3Ns results have been
home or away.The team which travels best wins most in this case the
All Blacks.When you consider for example Aus have won in NZ 12 times
since 1903..SA since 1921,the results between the two being close was
down to mostly home series victories Nzv SA.

Alan I can't fully agree with you, the stats above clearly shows an increase in tries for the AB and OZ where as we have not increased our try rate, I think the game has evolved more over the last twenty years than the hundred years before that.

It is like everything else in tthe modern era. We have to embrace some risk in our rugby, don't get me wrong, I don't wnat us to emulate any other team, but some innovation in attack is necessary, we can't forever rely on forward prowess to run our game.

I think perhaps the resistance of playing with a bit more risk has come mostly from the senior players and PDV didn't have the confidence in himself to push through.

The sad fact is I know we can play that game, think back to perth in 2009 we scored four tries and played good attacking rugby.

It is like they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks

Yeah the link I posted was more addressing the impact of travelling away to SA and Oz in the one trip.

SA approached it in a way that gave them practically no chance of winning the 3N by not being competitive away.

Oz came to NZ a little too cocky in my mind but gave themselves a good chance through a good win in SA.

GH, IN HIS WISDOM, took the approach that everything would come down to Brisbane and made a competitive yet failed attempt at snaring Port Elizabeth, but back it up with the strongest possible presence in Brisbane.

But even the SA win but inability to put tries on the board gives the draw this weekend to the AB's through points diff.

Masterly once again I reckon. Even if they lose- we couldn't front better this weekend if we tried.

On the stats its really a ground roots change. There's a difference between 'embracing risk' which has negative connotations and isn't a basis for change, and initiating a more balanced approached to the game on both attack and defence. GH said he looked at the SA style in 2008-9 and just said its not what NZers want, its boring to them and they won't go for it as a rugby nation, so he went more down the open approach.

PDV has already hinted his aim is to get into a position in which they can kick penalties and that alone has such a negative outlook that I can't see it happening in a way that will win the tournament.

The scenario that the AB's win it after applying full throttle attacking rugby hasn't happened yet but thats no reason to say it won't. It is simply about getting execution right.

We have the winning % we do now- it is now as high as at any time in our history and thats simply because we think we know the best way to get there, and really always have. This is just the flavour at the moment.

With respect from 1960-9 the All Blacks had a win /loss result around 90%,
losing only 4 matches in that period.They didn`t play helter skelter rugbyNeither did Grizz Wyllie who has identical win stats as Ted 86.7%
Nor was the style evolved by Ted ,John Mitchell/Robbie Deans evolved it
circa 2000.
More tries are being scored probably by law changes specifically the 1925
NSW dispensation law,and the laws apertaining to the Mark,
5 yard gap at the base of the scrum,has any one stats for tries scored by
forwards either from lineout/rolling Maul,or league style pick and goes
as opposed to backs and wings finishing passing movements.
The fact is we are no longer playing Rugby Union,or Rugby League but a bastardised Hybrid.League style tackling ,defence patterns,dumbing down the scrum,defence coaches,.
We no longer talk of forward drives,or passing rushes,its so many phases or pick and go .Pure 4th tackle rule under another name.

Alan thats just silly. If the truth be known John Hart 'evolved' it in Auckland and both trapp and Henry continued it through Aucks reign of the 80's. It continued through to now. it did not start with Mitchell. He never started anything but rubbish. If anything he got it all confused.

What a ridiculous comment. What were doing in 95? fidlesticks/ Our game has been open since the 83 Auckland and Canterbury teams with John Hart and grizz Wyllie and into NZ sides since the 87 World cup.

And don't start the forward domination stuff as it was our backplay that made the diff in the 80's as much as anything.

That was NOT my point,All Blacks have been playing Balanced counter attacking Rugby since Freddie Allen circa 1946 if you want to be hyper critical.In 1966-7 with the aid of team manager Kiwi Saxton he revived it
using Fergie McCormack a Great Counter-attacking full back.
He turned an indifferent Goal kicker to a great one,he was targetted in SA
during the 1970 tour.Subjected to multiple high kicks and multiple hits by several Forwards at once.he was taken out of the game effectivly.
Perfectly legal and very effective he ended the game covered in bruises,
in 1971 Barry John did it by skilful tactical kicks,in the 1970`s. Syd Going and a mobile pack ran the show.
Wellington and Allan Hewson,Bernie Fraser,Stu Wilson evolved the back three style attacking and defending as one.
Hewson was a great Counter attacker and Goal kicker,but pantsas a traditional fullback or under the high ball hence the defensive alignment.
The 1990s was the age ofLomu and Cullen and Jeff Wilson.
BUT teams like the sides of 1987,had there victories built on forward power
Scrums with great Front Rows,Lineoutswith the Whetton Brothers,Murray Pierce,Michael Jones and the DrivingMaul it was so effective they changed
the law.
Under Mitchell I watched it and tore my hair out,it was high risk rugby,key in the back row was Tana Umaga ,his injury.The Decision to save him for the Final[he was apparently fit for the semi]mayhave cost them a final appearance.
The thing was though,MOST if not all those sides could and did revert to gritting it out when required.Players like Merthens,Tony Brown ,Grant Fox used the drop goal when required.
You`ve talked about menot accepting the ends justifys the means bit,so would you rather win by reverting to a forward orientated plan as required
or losing running into a brick wall.
Look at the teams that have wonRWCs since 1995,and HOW they won them
did they care as long as they DID win them.
The current squad is more than able to playin many styles,the most successful Super side the Crusaders lets the forwards set the platform before moving it wide.
As to boring i`ve seen more matches that way than most preety it isn`t but over the years it was damn effective.

the 1925 NSW dispensation law

Hi Alan, if you have the time, could you explain what this rule change was, and the effect it has had?

Many thanks.

biltongbek wrote:It is like they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks

That's why you need more young dogs in the side!

And those young doggies already know the tricks...its just about letting the leash out a bit, or ripping it off altogether..!

Boomeranga,1925 Nsw dispensation law,no kicking the ball out on the full
as now.
Under the former rules ,before the 10 metre gap at the lineout,defending backs lined up flat to the advantage [offside line]which ran thru the middle of the lineout.
The attacking side was forced to go deeper and deeper before they could attack or kick.
Sides attacked by stitching up the touch lines,could be 40 or 50 lineouts in a match.
Referees had a golden rule,if the lineout was won more than once against the throw.Then something illegal was going on.
it was the ultimate 10 man Rugby and when you added a fast forward operating of the back like henie Muller or Bill Clark.
It could be a long day at the office for the backs,penaltiesand drops were prevalent.at one time a Drop was worth 4 points,a penalty or try 3 .
For example Ireland in 1963 would have beaten THE best all Black side of the era under todays scoring system.A converted try was only worth 5 then.

Do yo have any stats on forward passes?

Thanks emack.