In the space of a couple of months I've gone from watching the Six Nations- a tournament decided by goal-kicking and penalties, to Super Rugby, a tournament where the emphasis is entirely on tries.
There is a need from the Northern Hemisphere to play a more expansive game, attack with more pace and width, and improve the quality of handling to catch up with the Southern Hemisphere. But goal kicking and taking the points will remain a crucial part of the game.
As long as a penalty remains weighted as 3 points, 60% the value of a try by itself, it's almost never in a teams' interests to turn down a kick at goal. I think having a goal-kicker who is successful with 90%+ of his kicks, and has a range of 55+ metres is soon going to become an absolute must for all teams. Leaving 14 points out on the field like George Ford did is criminal, most games are decided by 7 or less points, an ice cold kicker is an absolute must for any team.
Captains should opt to kick at goal even more than they currently do. Any penalty around the half way line, even if from a tough angle, should be an attempt at goal. I think Goal-kickers often say they don't fancy a shot at goal from a long way out, but they should be told to improve their range, and to have an attempt anyway. Opting to kick to touch is actually throwing away the opportunity at points. In an era where the game's becoming more statistical and scientific, captain's decision making is not becoming more scientific. It seems the decision to go to touch is often taken off an impulse, or by the roar of the crowd.
What on earth is the point in kicking a penalty from the half-way line to touch just inside the oppo's 22. You get an 'attacking opportunity', but what you've actually done is thrown away 3 points. It's utter madness. I also see scrum halves taking ridiculous quick taps. They see a bit of space, their eyes light up and they're off. But what they're actually doing is costing their team points, it's a mixture of selfishness and stupidity. Quick taps from inside your own half can be a good idea, you can milk an extra 10 metres or create space to attack out wide, but doing it from a goal-kicking range is very rarely anything but throwing away points.
If I were the head of World Rugby I would change the rules of the game and the scoring system. I would make drop goals + penalties be worth 2 points, and a try worth 6 points. I'd scrap conversions. I mean what the hell is the logic behind a conversion. Why should you punish a side for being skillful enough to score in the corner by giving them a harder kick. But with the scoring system as it is now, it's just astonishing why sides don't take the points at every oppurtunity near the halfway line, and why every side doesn't have a long range kicker in their team.
I understand Super Rugby's bonus point system encourages sides to score tries, but I'm talking about test matches here. Some sides are more guilty than others. I guarantee Australia because Foley's kicking is poor will go to the corner from 45 metres out against England. Because of that England may end up winning a test or two. Aaron Cruden isn't a good goal-kicker either, and NZ regularly leave points out on the field by choosing to go to the corner. Fortunately for them they're so much more skillful than all the other teams it doesn't tend to matter that much!
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but as I've said I'm a better obsessed by stats. All teams want to win. They spend hours in the gym to become stronger than the opposition, hours on the training pitch becoming more skillful and cohesive. Yet out on the pitch the captain regularly forgets that 'winning' is done by accumulating more points than the opposition.
There is a need from the Northern Hemisphere to play a more expansive game, attack with more pace and width, and improve the quality of handling to catch up with the Southern Hemisphere. But goal kicking and taking the points will remain a crucial part of the game.
As long as a penalty remains weighted as 3 points, 60% the value of a try by itself, it's almost never in a teams' interests to turn down a kick at goal. I think having a goal-kicker who is successful with 90%+ of his kicks, and has a range of 55+ metres is soon going to become an absolute must for all teams. Leaving 14 points out on the field like George Ford did is criminal, most games are decided by 7 or less points, an ice cold kicker is an absolute must for any team.
Captains should opt to kick at goal even more than they currently do. Any penalty around the half way line, even if from a tough angle, should be an attempt at goal. I think Goal-kickers often say they don't fancy a shot at goal from a long way out, but they should be told to improve their range, and to have an attempt anyway. Opting to kick to touch is actually throwing away the opportunity at points. In an era where the game's becoming more statistical and scientific, captain's decision making is not becoming more scientific. It seems the decision to go to touch is often taken off an impulse, or by the roar of the crowd.
What on earth is the point in kicking a penalty from the half-way line to touch just inside the oppo's 22. You get an 'attacking opportunity', but what you've actually done is thrown away 3 points. It's utter madness. I also see scrum halves taking ridiculous quick taps. They see a bit of space, their eyes light up and they're off. But what they're actually doing is costing their team points, it's a mixture of selfishness and stupidity. Quick taps from inside your own half can be a good idea, you can milk an extra 10 metres or create space to attack out wide, but doing it from a goal-kicking range is very rarely anything but throwing away points.
If I were the head of World Rugby I would change the rules of the game and the scoring system. I would make drop goals + penalties be worth 2 points, and a try worth 6 points. I'd scrap conversions. I mean what the hell is the logic behind a conversion. Why should you punish a side for being skillful enough to score in the corner by giving them a harder kick. But with the scoring system as it is now, it's just astonishing why sides don't take the points at every oppurtunity near the halfway line, and why every side doesn't have a long range kicker in their team.
I understand Super Rugby's bonus point system encourages sides to score tries, but I'm talking about test matches here. Some sides are more guilty than others. I guarantee Australia because Foley's kicking is poor will go to the corner from 45 metres out against England. Because of that England may end up winning a test or two. Aaron Cruden isn't a good goal-kicker either, and NZ regularly leave points out on the field by choosing to go to the corner. Fortunately for them they're so much more skillful than all the other teams it doesn't tend to matter that much!
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but as I've said I'm a better obsessed by stats. All teams want to win. They spend hours in the gym to become stronger than the opposition, hours on the training pitch becoming more skillful and cohesive. Yet out on the pitch the captain regularly forgets that 'winning' is done by accumulating more points than the opposition.
