Does percentage rugby offer a high winning percentage?

I watched my beloved Crusaders play the top of the table Chiefs today. It was a great all-round performance and you could see the team growing in confidence throughout the game. It's no secret when the Crusaders pack fires, they give themselves a good chance of winning. But contrast tonight's performance with the Blues game earlier this season at home. For those of you who didn't see it, the pack gave a gnarly, grizzly display that bullied the Blues pack. But for all their forward dominance, the Crusaders came away only a few points ahead. They didn't offer much in attack. They just scored points at the right times.

I remember the first game against Australia in Sydney at the RC. It was a strange game. Beale had a shocker and the Aussie error rate was high but so too was NZ's. Defence dominated the game and for all their dominance, NZ were never able to completely shake free from the threat of Australia being able to win the game.

When I look at a lot of teams in world rugby, there seems to be a heavy sway towards conservative, percentage rugby. Australia, SA, France, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, even NZ have played games where they put the emphasis on defence and a very simple tactical game. Yet to me all of these teams to varying degrees have tried a more enterprising game and have profited as a result. France against Australia, England against NZ and Scotland, Wales against England or Italy, Ireland against Wales, SA vs Australia, NZ vs SA and Argentina, Scotland against Italy. All of these teams have looked a shadow of themselves when they have gone into their defensive shells and offered little on attack. When you try to minimise errors and play safe rugby, you are capable of getting a result but you also allow the opposition to remain in the game. You don't ram home the advantage. Look at Ireland against NZ in the second test, SA in the Dunedin game last year, the Lions in the second test.

The Crusaders have been up and down in form this year. Even at half time today they weren't all that far out in front, despite their advantage in possession. They could've tried to protect their lead but they came out in the second half and took the game to the Chief.

Dagg has been very ordinary for much of this Super season. His defence has been poor and his running game hasn't clicked at all. It's always a difficult conundrum what to do with a player out of form. Sometimes a player can over-think things and try to force things too much. There were calls for Dagg to be replaced by Ben Smith for the French series. They were legitimate calls as Ranger deserved a chance on the wing and Ben Smith has been NZ's most consistent back on attack and defence.

Dagg did nothing special in the French series in terms of attack. What he did do very well was what he was asked to do. His high ball takes and kicking game were immaculate. Sound familiar? You wouldn't say he did anything special but what he did was very solid. The second test in particular showed that when you execute your tactics close to perfection, you give yourselves a very good chance. The first and third tests showed that if your opponent also does what is required in defence, the game becomes very difficult to assert yourself.

You could see Dagg's confidence grow during the French series. When you do the basics right, it inevitably has a positive impact on your performance. But what use is confidence if it's not used to extract the maximum out of your performance? Dagg made a few errors in the first half. He got an unlucky bounce from a Cruden kick, he dropped a low pass from Romano but one thing you couldn't fault was his attacking intent.

It helps when your forwards give you a solid platform. It helps when your opponents get pinged at the breakdown and make them hesitate in that area. But Dagg practically lived up in the line on attack and he created gaps for the players around him. It's pleasing for me to see a player come back into form after a period of doubt. But after watching this Lions series, it's also pleasing to see teams take the initiative on attack and do all that they can to take the game to their opponents. It requires a complete team performance but that is the key. I mean complete team performance in every sense.

Do the basics right and give yourselves a solid platform. But then don't stay in your shell. Stick your head out and take a chance. That can be executed in a number of ways. But don't die wondering what could've been. When results don't go your way, do you go off that field thinking you did all you could to avoid that result?

Too often at the moment, I see teams unwilling to press home any advantage. There's far too much kicking and there's not enough work done up front before the ball is tried to be spun out wide. And when there is front foot ball, not enough is done with it. In professional rugby, winning is what counts. But can we say percentage rugby gives you the best chance of winning? For me, it allows the opposition to stay in the game and the result comes down to key moments. Isn't it better to be more aggressive and take the luck factor or error rate out of the equation?

For me playing the percentages can be playing to others weaknesses or to your strengths. Its not just about boring rugby. For instance when Munster were winning the HEC they just used their pack with O'Gara being used to pin teams back in their own half. When Joe Schmidt was Leinster coach they played to their strengths. They liked to move the ball around and go around the opposition. When they played Wasps in this seasons Amlin cup semi final, Wasps scored a few first half tries and although Leinster were still leading they tightened things up in the second half and strangled Wasps. That was Schmidt making sure of the win.


When England played Ireland in the 6 nations just gone, England adapted to the wet weather while Ireland continued to play their usual way. England were happy to let Ireland have the ball and defend and they won the game easily. Thats another example.


The heineken cup final was an unusual one. Clermont were playing Toulon. Clermonts style is to keep ball in hand and run everything while Toulons style is to defend and play territory and let Wilkinson kick all penalties. Clermont were the better team for most of the match and had a good solid lead but they blew it near the end by gifting the opposition an easy score. That came from a turnover when Clermonts Fofana was running the ball out of their own half with no support. So how could you describe that. Did Toulon win by playing the percentages or did Clermont lose it? My own view is Clermont definitely lost it but I'm sure others will say that Toulon won it by grinding them down.


By the way I saw the second half of the Crusaders Chiefs game. The Crusaders were very good and Kieran Reid in particular was superb. Its interesting to see the Crusaders style because Munster are trying something similar under Rob Penney but it wasn't worked out yet. In that comparison it remains to be seen if he has bitten off more than he can chew.

Kia that win was UNREAL...top of the table Chiefs were subjected to the very best of what the Saders are capable of. Agree re Dagg and back to his best on attack- Halfpenny pales in that respect and I'd have Dagg at fullback by a street- so percentages are out the window for me on that one. Nothing beats a fullback carving up the middle like that.

Read was fantastic and is really at the peak of his game at the mo. Will likely captain the World cup side in my opinion.

The second french test showed how percentages can be a powerful way to control a match- the kicking was the best I've seen from an AB side in years. But its still all about execution- the Lions tried the same second test and their kicking was terrible, aimless and put them in more risk than they could deal with.

I have been watching how the Crusaders and All Blacks play intently for some time now, there are quite a lot of similarities in the processes they follow and how they build an innings.

I am talking about when they play tougher opponents as it is easier to see the thought processes employed rather than against weaker teams where they often manage to break away early and then just go on a roll.

Firstly they play under the concept of possession, but to be fair it isn't necessarily risky possession, what they do is play the ball side to side going wide all the way to their wings, this is well balanced with players such as Read who would take the direct line towards the middle of the field.

They don't throw Hail Mary passes or have any risky moves, it is pretty much just left to right and the only variation on this drifting the ball wide is the outside runner coming in on the angle to avoid th touch line.

Then also very notable is the fact that they run towards support which means they can retain momentum and quick ruck ball.

There are some issues which in my view is hinting at the illegal though, bu they do it very smartly. Franks is consistently in an offside position as one of the pillars and will obstruct any potential forward wanting to either contest the ruck or gain access to their halfback.

This is done with two scenario's in mind. Wither the defending team has to infringe to halt the momentum, which constitutes a penalty, or after a good number of phases they will find the inevitable gap in the defence.

When they recieve a kick in the deep which is not chased well, unlike most teams they will not attack straight forward, you will usually have three players back and there will either be a cross field run or a few long passes to change the line of attack (depending where there are fewest defensive numbers)

This is all of course based on a solid pack and very good line out options.

As the match progresses and a lead is forming they will start chancing their arm more by offloading in the tackle, but only once they have established a lead, those risky or potential risky offloads don't feature all that often early in the game.

But as the game progresses you will find more support runners running of the shoulder of the ball carriers to enable those offloads in the tackle.

The other important aspect of their ball carrying is that the runner will have both hands on the ball, sounds simple, but it puts doubt in the mind of the defenders as they aren't sure whether the ball is going to be passed.

Another thing they do very well is having support runners run themselves into position, and the ball carriers themselves are not at full tilt every time they have the ball, a change of pace is one of their keys in the manner they break the line.

One thing they regularly use are to have their forward pod running as many as four players in front of the midfield when the ball goes wide, it seems simple, but the reality is to change your defensive organisation around three or four forward effectively creating traffic in front of the ball being passed behind them does a lot to obscure the visibility of what is happening to the ball and where I goes.

They are a very well drilled group of individuals and the uncanny thing is it doesn't really matter whether it is their first choice team or a few youngsters, the game plan is very well executed either way.


It may not seem like percentage rugby, but it certainly is.

 I'm a percentage golfer, no risks, play safe etc etc and I can honestly say hand on heart - it doesn't work and probably stifles creativity and natural flair. - Its also predictable to defend against as opposed to a more dynamic approach

Interesting points gents. I like the idea that percentage rugby can mean different things and agree with that sentiment.

No risk rugby is the future...and I for one love it.  

Defenders the heros,
set-pieces the art forms,
techno-hound stat freaks on chat forums telling you why a bad game had some outlandishly exciting player rating stats for most balls recyled out of the rear of some forward's ass.  And the sweet, sweet, sweet talk of when a 6 isn't a 7 but might actually be a 6.5; and when a 7 has a complete game but is still, statistically speaking, not a 'NATURAL' 7

I love all that stuff - who needs instincts...can't numberify instinct.

To me rugby is a pretty simple game. Percentage rugby is about not making many mistakes but that does not mean you don't take chances. Rather by not making mistakes you put pressure on the opposition, steadily crushing and dominating them until you have created opportunities to score.
The Auckland teams of the late 80s and early 90s did that and the Crusaders generally do that. Pressure pressure by the forwards mainly until the other team snaps. That pressure comes from not making mistakes in defence and attack. 0 errors is the percentage that makes the difference.

The plan was simple yesterday. The Aussie scrum collapsed and Corbs must take a lot of the praise for that. Yet despite that Australia had clawed its way back into the game 19 - 16.

Faletau got a turnover and suddenly the ball went wide and the Lions escaped down the left flank. It led to Halfpenny entering the line and releasing infield to Sexton. A few minutes later and Halfpenny with immaculate positioning takes a poor Genia kick and runs the ball back offloading to North.

To me they were the crucial scores of the game. Australia was getting back into the game and the Lions were still kicking too much and looked bereft of ideas with a man up in the first half. The moments of magic from Halfpenny were in contrast to anything we'd seen in the series. I simply don't remember Halfpenny running the ball back in the other two games. North had one in the first game from a poor Barnes kick but this is what I meant in my original post: waiting for the opposition to make mistakes is a dangerous ploy. Assessing your options and taking on the line, despite potentially leaving you exposed, can be destructive.