Why the All Blacks really lost
November 05 2007
The entire rugby world has moved on, with domestic and regional competitions now firmly back in the spotlight. But we have afforded ourselves one last, statistical glance at the World Cup.
The official tournament report makes for a very interesting read, and gives a unique insight into why a team like New Zealand collapsed so spectacularly and why South Africa triumphed.
When a tournament has a knock-out stage, then the dynamics suddenly change and at the World Cup in France some of the changes were remarkable.
In one area however, there was no surprise.
South Africa, the winning team, produced the sort of rugby throughout the tournament that was consistent with its approach in the period leading up to it. Their game was based on a strong set piece, an aggressive defence and an ability to turn transgressions into points. In RWC 2007, it proved highly successful.
Their own line-out was as successful as any, they managed more line-out steals than any other team, and had an effective scrum. Securing possession was not seen as the ultimate objective - pressure was the priority - and their kick at goal rate was at the satisfactory 75 per cent mark.
In addition, but excluding the final where no tries were scored, they scored tries at a consistent level throughout the tournament with match try counts of eight, three, four, nine, five and four.
With several of the other teams, however, matters proved far less predictable.
Before RWC 2007 started, there appeared to be a clear favourite. New Zealand's record over the last several years had been outstanding.
They had done all this through pursuing a clearly identified approach that was not replicated by their rivals. New Zealand saw all their players as distributors of the ball while most other countries saw forwards as providers and just the backs as distributors.
The result was that New Zealand were highly successful with their many tries coming from all parts of the field and from all available sources of possession.
Successful as the New Zealand approach had been, the one question that was critical therefore was whether an expansive approach would stand up under the pressure of a winner take all knockout competition.
It did not - and this has never been more dramatically illustrated than in the France versus New Zealand quarter-final game. In order to understand the immensity of this game, it is necessary to go back to November 2006.
In that month, New Zealand defeated France - in France - by 47-3. This suggested that New Zealand seemed to have found the right formula for beating one of their major World Cup rivals. They scored seven tries, creating just 43 rucks and kicked the ball 29 times. They made few passes - just 91 - but were clinical in their execution.
This formula disappeared however in their World Cup quarter-final match against France. Instead of creating 43 rucks, New Zealand created 165 or almost four times as many. This was around 100 more than a normal New Zealand game; was around 50 per cent higher than the next highest in the tournament and is almost certainly the highest figure ever seen in an international match.
It was at a scale that New Zealand had never remotely experienced before with an often seen expansive approach being replaced by forward attrition. The successful formula of recent years had been abandoned for some reason and New Zealand found themselves out of the competition.
The same could also be said however of their conquerors in that game - France. When they beat England, their semi-final opponent by 22-9, only a month or so before the tournament started, they kicked the ball just 19 times. In the RWC semi final however, against the same opponents, they kicked the ball 46 times and lost.
Again, the perceived safety of kicking into the opponents half outweighed a possible alternative strategy that could have resulted in a different outcome.
A glance at some interesting World Cup facts:
* Most disastrous change of tack, part 1:
In November 2006, New Zealand defeated France, in France, 47-3. The All Blacks scored seven tries, created 43 rucks and kicked the ball 29 times. Less than a year later in their World Cup quarter-final the Blacks fashioned 165 rucks, about 100 more than their average, scored one try and lost 20-18.
* Most disastrous change of tack, part 2:
A month before the tournament started, France beat England 22-9, kicking the ball only 19 times. In their semi-final, France kicked on 46 occasions and lost 14-9. The lesson from both examples? Don't change your strategy simply because you're at the sudden-death end of a World Cup.
* It's official. England's strike-rate is abysmal:
Of the teams that qualified for the knockout stages, England were far and away the weakest at turning possession into tries. New Zealand were the most clinical in the pool stages scoring at a rate of one try every 91 seconds of possession, followed by Australia who were successful every 140 seconds. South Africa 160 seconds, France 197, Fiji 277, Scotland 298 and Argentina 311 were the next most efficient. Bottom of the pile were England, who took more than seven minutes to cross the line.
* More bad news. England's defence wasn't up to much either:
When compared to the other seven countries that made the quarter-finals, only Fiji (one try every 307 seconds) and Scotland (one in 519 seconds) had leakier defences than England's (one every 532 seconds) in the group section. Argentina had the meanest defence, conceding one try for every 34 minutes the opposition had the ball.
* Who needs backs?:
Portugal, Fiji, Tonga, Romania and the United States were the only countries whose forwards managed to score more tries than their backs.
* Get the first phase right and the results will follow:
Of the 296 tries that were scored in the tournament, 32 per cent came from line-outs, 18 per cent from scrums, 17 per cent from turnover ball and 15 per cent from opposition kicks. This was roughly similar to
the trends in Australia in 2003 except that fewer tries (nine per cent) came off poor kicks.
* More risks are being taken, provided you play your rugby Down Under:
In the 2003 tournament, 25 per cent of tries originated from within the scoring team's own half, yet four years later this had jumped to 33 per cent. However, there is a marked distinction between the two hemispheres. In 2007, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand ran in 40 tries from their own half of the field, while England, Scotland, Italy, France, Wales and Ireland could manage only 20.
* Fact or fiction? You need long periods of possession to disorganise defences and create holes:
Fiction. Nearly 300 tries were scored during the World Cup, an overwhelming 83 per cent of those requiring three or fewer rucks or mauls. And if further proof is needed that endless recycling of possession is redundant, 53 per cent of those tries took three or fewer passes.
* No reward for scoring early:
Only four nations - England, Ireland, Samoa and Portugal - scored more tries in the first half of their contests than the second. New Zealand and Italy were beautifully balanced in that they managed the same number in each period, while the rest saved their best until last. Wales took the longest to warm up, posting 18 of their 23 tries in the second period. Samoa fizzled out quickest, grabbing four of their five by half-time.
* They couldn't kick my granny out of Sainsbury's:
England were the seventh worst team out of the 20 competing nations when it came to successfully converting penalties, dropped goals and conversions. Their success rate of 67 per cent put them ahead of Australia, Wales, Namibia, Georgia, Ireland and Romania but behind the rest. Scotland were the most efficient, registering 96 per cent. That consisted of eight from nine penalties, 15 out of 15 conversions and none from two dropped goal attempts. Ah yes, those pesky dropped goals which were supposed to be crucial in determining world champions. There were 14 successful dropped goals from 83 attempts overall, a success rate of only 17 per cent. Of those 14, England accounted for five and Argentina four. France attempted five dropped goals in the knockout stages, none of which succeeded.
*Secret to winning World Cups? Don't have the ball:
In the pool stages the team with most possession won 68 per cent of the time but this dipped to a staggering 13 per cent, or one match out of the eight in the knockout phase. In each of their three sudden-death contests South Africa had less ball than their opponents. And even in the pool stages they were only in possession for longer spells than Portugal, Samoa and Namibia.
*And finally:
There were 645 replacements used, an average of just over 13 per game, while the television match officials awarded 33 tries on the back of 57 referrals. Mark Cueto still hasn't scored though.
With thanks to the IRB and SAPA