Closer than we think
6 Mar 2013
RICHARD FERGUSON writes that South African defence has been as impressive as New Zealand’s attack in the early stages of this season’s Super Rugby.
The matches I most looked forward to were the Blues and the Crusaders and my Sharks hosting the Stormers.
I was disappointed watching our teams deliver dour rugby while the New Zealand teams looked light years ahead in terms of skill and mindset.
I must be honest, I didn’t expect fireworks in the game at Kings Park, but I was expecting the teams to loosen up at some point in the match. Both teams have attacking players and there would have been nothing better than seeing attack favour defence.
My analytical mind went looking for answers, and the stats I managed to dig up made me realise the two South African teams were a lot more clinical in their basics, compared to the Blues and Crusaders.
In terms of tackling stats, the Sharks missed 5 from 120 attempts and the Stormers 12 from 84, while the Blues and Saders were both well down on tackle effectiveness, Blues missing 14 from 112 and Saders 29 from 145. Considering that all four these teams are likely to take part in the playoffs later this year, the South African teams can hold their head high knowing that they are defensively ready.
The counter argument to that is two South African sides were playing each other and two New Zealand sides were on the field at the same time. They had different mindsets and different strengths. This weekend will provide more insight on my view that different styles don’t necessary mean weaker teams.
The Blues have a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of set pieces. In the lineouts they lost 5 of their 12 throws, while the Saders got 10 from 10 and the Sharks and Stormers each losing two on their own throw. They also got penalised twice at scrum time, but so did the Sharks (4 penalties) and the Stormers (3 penalties). The Saders have a clean record when it comes to scrum time, something they will take as a positive going into this week’s clash against the Hurricanes.
Another positive for the Saders was the fact that they ran 90% of the ball that got to flyhalf Dan Carter. Carter received the ball 41 times, kicking only 10 times and passing a mammoth 36 balls. Their attack was very lateral and easy to defend and the midfield offered nothing and Tom Taylor was pedestrian at fullback. Israel Dagg was wasted on the wing.
In comparison, the South African flyhalves kicked most of their possession, but conditions and the arm struggle up front influenced this approach.
The only team of the four to get a linebreak was the Blues, who managed three, while offloads in attacking play were double what the Crusaders managed (10 for the Blues against 5 of the Saders). Offloads in the South African derby were low with the Sharks managing 4 to the 2 of the Stormers.
All four these teams should be in contention when the competition reaches the business end, and I am certain that matches between say the Blues and Sharks or Crusaders and Stormers will be closer than most expect. Not because they will change the way in which they approach the game, but because the defensive strengths of the South African is a counter to the attacking skills of the Kiwis.
24 Comments
6 Mar 2013, 12:08 pm
Closer than we think http://t.co/FqjDQpzJIV via @sharethis My look at the stats in the big NZ and SA derby matches
6 Mar 2013, 14:40 pm
@RichFergie-1: Said this yesterday.”Strong chiefs attack vs strong stormers defense. the challenge is whether the stormers’ attack can better than the chiefs’ defense.” “The result isn’t as conclusive as most would think. The Chiefs are fairly comfortable favourites, but their record vs the stormers isn’t that great.”
Nice to know you’ve expanded on my hypothesis.
6 Mar 2013, 15:51 pm
@pompies2-2:
Glad you agree with the insights..
Seems that statistical articles don’t really take off here..
6 Mar 2013, 16:25 pm
@Richard Ferguson-3: No, we rather just fight and argue, with little regards for the facts. Don’t allow facts to get in the way of a good story. However, as with all stats, they are subjective and don’t tell the full story.
7 Mar 2013, 00:01 am
NZ teams attack has looked impressive as NZ sides like to run the ball that is the culture of their game. They tend to give each other space to run.
Look at the cheetahs and Chiefs game – the cheetahs had an organised defence and closed the chiefs out. Then the cheetahs gave up.
Defence is not just about tackling it has more got to do with structures. get a team with great defence structure the NZ sides attacking will dry up.
7 Mar 2013, 07:12 am
“@RichFergie: Closer than we think http://t.co/CS6vdyHci7 My look at the stats in the big NZ and SA derby matches” good read Rich
7 Mar 2013, 08:57 am
Interesting article that highlights the contrasts between the Kiwi and Saffa teams…
From what I read and have watched I reckon the emphasis for Kiwis at the moment is:
- Maximising options
- Offloads
- Maximising width
- Ruck protection/clearing
- Set piece: lineouts and scrums a bit rusty
- defence a bit rusty
- Play for space in front (defence not so miserly)
In contrast Saffas
- Very strong set piece for this early in the competition
- Also miserly defence this early
- Play for space behind the line (reactive to miserly defence)
I actually reckon the Saffa teams may have an advantage as the competition advances…
They are building the foundation, getting that optimal, and then will add to the foundation…
Kiwi teams may have difficulties against teams with a stronger, better organised set piece and defence… Also to use an analogy – It may also be difficult to fix a foundation when the house is already built and people are already using the 2nd floor…
However, ref interpretations may neutralise any set piece advantage…
7 Mar 2013, 09:08 am
@Heavens Game-6:
The point of the article was to state how close the South African teams are to the New Zealand teams, contrary to most of the ‘boring’ reports.
This weekend will go a long way in proving / disproving the theory.
7 Mar 2013, 09:21 am
We play a different style to them, but our top teams (Bulls, Sharks and Stormers) will be more than a match for most overseas and all at home. I think.
I think that the antipodeans are just as intimidated playing at our top stadiums as we are playing there.
7 Mar 2013, 09:25 am
@Heavens Game-6:
The real litmus test will start this weekend, then we can begin the theorizing with game facts to back up speculation.
That said, you are probably right in your summary of the respective team focus to date, but I would caution any suggestion the NZ teams can’t adapt to playing a tight defensive opposition team game plan.
To me, relying on goal kicking to get the bulk of your points is putting too much importance on expecting the opposition to make mistakes in their red zone.
Opposition mistakes occur all over the park and profiting from them to the best advantage can turn a match on its head.
7 Mar 2013, 09:38 am
@Richard Ferguson-3: Keep it up. One article is not the indicator
7 Mar 2013, 09:40 am
@Richard: yes, got your point and enjoyed the article. was agreeing with you but just adding my interpretation…
7 Mar 2013, 09:41 am
what a load of manure..
Saffa teams cant score tries and rely on goal kicking to win games, much like the Boks..
1 saffa team out of 4 last weekend managed to cross the tryline..
this weekend will prove that the best form of defense is attack, and the kiwi sides have this aspect in bucketloads..
Saffas do not..
simple..
7 Mar 2013, 09:44 am
@ brads… agree with you mostly… and also don’t underestimate ref interpretations to neutralise scrum advantage…
if set piece adv neutralised somewhat and a defensive mindset allows kiwis to run all day long without fear of too much counterattack threat then Saffa teams will be asking forshit…
7 Mar 2013, 10:11 am
@the curse-12:
Where does the Crusaders effort last weekend fit into that declaration of yours?
7 Mar 2013, 10:25 am
@Brads-14: poops is just trolling a lure
7 Mar 2013, 10:32 am
@The Rangerman-15:
So was I
7 Mar 2013, 10:33 am
@Heavens Game-11:
I know and meant to say that I agree with your points.
Breaking it down even further like you did is a smart way to look at it.
7 Mar 2013, 10:38 am
@Brads-16: he is a blues fan so chang your bait.
7 Mar 2013, 10:46 am
@The Rangerman-18:
I am Blue’s fan on a Saffa site.
I am not an auto anti Saffa groupie.
If someone posts something that grabs my attention I will react.
7 Mar 2013, 10:54 am
The Blues are playing the most attractive rugby so far this year, by some distance.
7 Mar 2013, 10:56 am
@Richard Ferguson-17: I reckon the Blues will take the Bulls – not least due to their first game on tour, and the Highlanders rucking/counter rucking emphasis will be too much for the Cheetahs…
But if the Chiefs aren’t careful and dont adapt slightly and the Stormers play with the same intensity as last week… With home support at Newlands for 1st home game I reckon Stormers will take them especially if they can build an early lead…
However if the Chiefs get an early try say and a couple of penalties then its all over rover if Stormers have to chase…
7 Mar 2013, 10:59 am
@Heavens Game-21:
I’m with you, the New Zealand teams in New Zealand will be too strong for any of the visiting South African or Australian teams.
As for the Chiefs – they had stuttered starts in both their wins, and a bad start in Cape Town might be a step too far to come back from.
11 Mar 2013, 09:52 am
So it was much closer than we all thought..
Well done SA teams!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.