Six Nations statistical review reveals two simple truths

Hope you didnt miss this article, its a very good read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/12/the-breakdown-six-nations-statistics

Love it.
The scrum is a means of restopping the game not restarting it.

Interesting article.

More ball in play time, less kicking and less tries - defences really are winning games at the moment. (thank god for Shaun Edwards...)

I think irrespective of what the statistic says scrums remain an important weapon in the arsenal of teams. That is how england managed to first dominate and then break the spirit in their match.

South Africa score a high percentage of their tries from first phase position (the other is counter attack from opposition mistakes), and here I count line outs and scrums.

In my opinion the reason why tries are drying up is the contentious breakdown, attacking teams use breakdowns in one of two ways, get quick ball or "con" the referee into awarding them a penalty.

If you look at the reduced number of try bonus points in the Super XV this year and the increase at penalty kicks at goal, there is a significant difference in how teams accumilate points.

Teams and coaches who beleive the importance of scrums are reduced and thus focus more on breakdown skills will make a mistake in my opinion as with scrms you have more space to attack as 8 defenders are busy propping up in the scrum.

The reality is you only need one or two chances in a match where you create space to score a try and every scrum allows you that opportunity, and if you aren't a strong scrummaging unit, yyou will recieve ball under pressure and negate a very important facet of play.

The same principal applies to line out ball.

If you take this statistic (I haven't checked it but am sure I am correct), compare the number of tries scored in relations to breakdowns to the number of tries scored in relation to set pieces it will show how much more effective scrum attack ball is.

The Stormers this weekend scored a try after 30 ruck phases, that is how long it took them to create an opening, compare that to a try scored by the Bulls from set piece.

Statistics don't tell all, and sometimes they do. But scrums in my view can be used to exploit weaker teams, as the English vs Ireland match clearly showed.

This is a brilliant article.

Biltong - I totally agree - the single biggest statistic from that piece for me is that scrums accounted for a quarter of all penalities awarded.

The second biggest is that p!ssing around re-setting scrums accounted for 21 minutes of the Scotland-Ireland game, which is just awful.

Is it really true that the Sharks scrum is 980kg????

lol, no mate it is around 930kg.

The Irish coach was saying similar things regarding the scrum stats from the world cup, as a platform for setting up attacks its pretty useless despite the 5 m law change.

But Ireland also proved that being competitive there is vital

biltongbek wrote:lol, no mate it is around 930kg.

So let's start a rumour that it's 980kg then.

err- i read the first line saying that scrums arr barely relevant- did they watch the england v ireland game?

maybe i am missing the point here as i havent read on- however seems like a crazy way to start an article!

mystiroakey wrote:err- i read the first line saying that scrums arr barely relevant- did they watch the england v ireland game?

maybe i am missing the point here as i havent read on- however seems like a crazy way to start an article!

yeah, I disagree with that.

I thought that the artical clearly states that "England's match against Ireland was very much an exception" in regards to the scrums?

as i said before i didnt read the article- But the one thing that is in the irish and englands minds post 6n's is the scrummaging, and how it was used to win a game of rugby. You can talk stats all you want but the truth is - it can be used to be very relevant, possibly due to englands opportunism

I am no expert when it comes to the english language and literature(thats a given) however i thought is was a stupid headline.

I just tried to download the IRB analysis of the 2011 world cup, but something seems to be faulty.

Will try again later.

biltongbek wrote:the IRB .....faulty.

No sh1t Biltong

How many good attacking moves did england actually generate direct from all that scrum dominance though?
Most of what they got was penalties, not good possession.

Had they dominated the ruck area to that extent then even Strettle might've got on the score sheet ( Ok Im exaggerating for effect here)


The point of the scrum was supposed to be to tie the forwards in and give teams space to play after a competition for the ball. Its not a fair competition for the ball, and its not creating space for effective back play.

Its become little more than contest for penalties, even with changes to the offside law and with referees instructed to try and let the scrum flow if the ball is coming out.

Maybe we need the game needs more players who are lazy and uninterested in defence. Cipriani as Englands backs coach?

Actually Peter you can look at the scrum a different way.

The scrum, like the line out was originally designed to be a restart with a contestable ball.

It is very rare that a scrum goes against the head these days. Sides feed the ball. Push before its entered and the need for hooking ball is gone.

In the old days both hookers used to hook for the ball. Feeds had to be straight to give the defending team a chance.

The fact that the scrum is now pretty much non contestable means that other areas of the game have to be available to provide the defending team a chance of regaining possession.

In my opinion the scrum is far from the only play that needs serious accounting. The IRB detectives to referees are short sighted. Two blues players were yellow carded this weekend for attempting an interception....! The call was absolutely ridiculous.

maestegmafia wrote:In my opinion the scrum is far from the only play that needs serious accounting. The IRB detectives to referees are short sighted. Two blues players were yellow carded this weekend for attempting an interception....! The call was absolutely ridiculous.

I didn't see that, but I'm reminded of Charlie Sharples' yellow v France in the 6Ns. That was certaintly no yellow.

Billtong I agree with you on the breakdown. The new rules were brought in to promote more attacking running rugby. However, the breakdown rules are such that teams are looking for penalties. Net result is more kicking at goal.

I was listening to an interview with Ewan McKensie, Reds coach today and he had some interesting views regarding kicking. He said that the Reds made more kicks than any other team last year and won the comp. This year they kicked the most v the Brumbies and won comfortably. They kicked their least v the Bulls and got thumped. He believes that effective line kicking and defenses are key to winning the super 15 and not attacking rugby. Same seems to be true in the 6 nations.

My conclusion and I have said it from the start the new breakdown rules and breakdown elvs don't work. In my opinion they have made the game worse for the increased amounts of penalties and confusion. IRB should have been focusing on fixing the scrum and left kicking and breakdown alone.

In my opinion they have made the game worse for the increased amounts of penalties and confusion

If there was more opportunity to win ball at the set piece then it would reduce the emphasis of competition at the breakdown.

The scrum is the main problem and if a few rules were more regularly enforced, strait feeds and no pushing before the ball is in, and one removed, that a scrum half should get the ball in as quickly as possible, then the scrum would be contestable and less of an issue.

Just get rid of the hit and enforce the straight feed rule.

Problem solved.

Poor Corris Thomas. Someone should have told him to just watch the rugby instead.

Meanwhile, players muck about in the scrum because they see it as a scheme worth trying for their own tactical reasons (don't blame the rules or the refs for players having to be told where to stand, how long to stand for, what call to make contact on or any of the many other seemingly brainless activities of players setting up for scrums). They're not children, they've grown up with the calls, they know where to put their feet.

In one game this weekend, we had a ref clearly and loudly call Crouch, Touch, Pause............ and distinctly on 'Pause' one side Engaged. Their excuse was that he needed to say it clearer. Even a baby watching the screen now knows that the procedure is da, da, da, DA! You don't need the words, you should know the rhythm if you call yourself a professional player. And no, the ref didn't keep changing the speed of his calls (another lazy excuse messing about players use).

Refs, for their part, muck about with scrums because some of them like rests in fast games (comic perhaps but no less serious or true)

HERSH wrote:Just get rid of the hit and enforce the straight feed rule.

Problem solved.

+1

Change the call to Crouch...Touch...Pause...Shuffle slowly forward! Probelm solved.

My feeling is that prior to the TMO referees were much more likely to award a try and give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team - (Horgan's foot in touch v England, Lomu v England (forward pass (not to do with TMO) and other instances I am sure

However, as the article says - defence coaches and more professionally designed defences have probably been the main reason.

The reason for the increase in passing in recent times is maybe related to the rule change that caused the lessening of kicking (as when Ireland won their GC)