Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Andre de Waal High Kicks Theorem
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dirty harry" data-source="post: 1165422" data-attributes="member: 86934"><p>The issue I'm having with this discussion is twofold...</p><p></p><p>1. Why are you obsessed with possession. The history of rugby union has proved over and over that possession isnt important. For decades NZ dominated with 40% odd posession, constantly scoring tries from transition from turnover ball. As the game has changed, SA have adapted to negative breakdown law changes for attacking teams, and now evade risk at the breakdown by kicking more. In both cases, posession isnt important.</p><p></p><p>2. Your whole premise is propagated on the tact that tries win games, this hasnt been the same for a long time.</p><p>Pressure wins games, keeping the scoreboard ticking over wins games, and penalties are the easiest low risk way to do that in the modern game.</p><p></p><p>So I would ask, why is box kicking the ball and going from 100% posession (for a few seconds, while in the ruck, and reducing to maybe 90% when making a pass or carry) to 50/50 in a much better area of the field less important when the alternative outcomes are almost all negative.</p><p></p><p>Let's use a favourable scenario for your theorum, a ruck on the 15m on halfway. Let's ignore the context of score, so its 0-0, and the context of game management so its 8 minutes in. Let's also ignore context of mismatch (1 team having a strong defence, 1 team having a weak wider attack) so let's say it is England vs England. Also lets ignore exterior factors, like crowd or ref tendancies, so Barnes is reffing and its behind closed doors, and finally let's take fatigue out of the question also.</p><p></p><p>your theorum suggests that keeping ball is more favourable than kicking it, but let's look at possible outcomes...</p><p></p><p>1. Box kick to the 22m, you either retain posession or lose posession in multiple ways. </p><p>In this scenario there is very little risk, even giving for mistakes of kicking too long, calling a 22, or kicking short. The worst outcomes are a 22, scrum to defend on opposition 22, or the minuscule % of a counter attack.</p><p></p><p>2. Use the forward pods. Posession is kept, but still on half way, best case scenario 4/5m higher up pitch. The % of mistake at the resulting ruck increases, and further increases with every ruck. Attacking teams go 7 phases at best 5/6 times per game. That's usually a 12% rate of getting to phase 7. So you have a 12% chance of NOT turning over ball on your half way. </p><p></p><p>3. You go outside 10. This is the highest risk play, despite the highest % of retaining ball. Balls get to 13 using 3 passes better than 3 forwards carrying into 3 rucks. However the turnover rate outside 12 is 3 times higher.</p><p></p><p>So, in our favourable scenario, the lowest risk smartest play is the kick, it eliminates the risk of conceding a kickable pen, a high % turnover, but not only that of the other 2 options the 2nd smartest play is the lower % attainable posession.</p><p></p><p>If we then add the other factors like defensive strategies, ref tendancies, skill execution under fatigue, context of the score board etc, they all pretty much add to the theory that kicking is the lowest risk play.</p><p></p><p>So to conclude, trying to win a game ball in hand is the easiest way to lose score board equity, and put pressure on yourself and force higher risk plays. Like a black Jack player asking to hit on 17 when the dealer has 5 showing, why would you risk those odds for glory? </p><p></p><p></p><p>As we have just witnessed, not losing the scoreboard is far more Important than trying to win, not only SA's recent victories by a mere point on breakdown turnovers, but Fijis revival playing smart and not fancy, every Warren Gatland win ever, Saracens dominance in England, La Rochelles recent upward curve.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The fundamental misunderstanding that posession wins games is pivotal here, posession doesnt win games, pressure does, and pressure can be exerted in a myriad of ways.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dirty harry, post: 1165422, member: 86934"] The issue I'm having with this discussion is twofold... 1. Why are you obsessed with possession. The history of rugby union has proved over and over that possession isnt important. For decades NZ dominated with 40% odd posession, constantly scoring tries from transition from turnover ball. As the game has changed, SA have adapted to negative breakdown law changes for attacking teams, and now evade risk at the breakdown by kicking more. In both cases, posession isnt important. 2. Your whole premise is propagated on the tact that tries win games, this hasnt been the same for a long time. Pressure wins games, keeping the scoreboard ticking over wins games, and penalties are the easiest low risk way to do that in the modern game. So I would ask, why is box kicking the ball and going from 100% posession (for a few seconds, while in the ruck, and reducing to maybe 90% when making a pass or carry) to 50/50 in a much better area of the field less important when the alternative outcomes are almost all negative. Let's use a favourable scenario for your theorum, a ruck on the 15m on halfway. Let's ignore the context of score, so its 0-0, and the context of game management so its 8 minutes in. Let's also ignore context of mismatch (1 team having a strong defence, 1 team having a weak wider attack) so let's say it is England vs England. Also lets ignore exterior factors, like crowd or ref tendancies, so Barnes is reffing and its behind closed doors, and finally let's take fatigue out of the question also. your theorum suggests that keeping ball is more favourable than kicking it, but let's look at possible outcomes... 1. Box kick to the 22m, you either retain posession or lose posession in multiple ways. In this scenario there is very little risk, even giving for mistakes of kicking too long, calling a 22, or kicking short. The worst outcomes are a 22, scrum to defend on opposition 22, or the minuscule % of a counter attack. 2. Use the forward pods. Posession is kept, but still on half way, best case scenario 4/5m higher up pitch. The % of mistake at the resulting ruck increases, and further increases with every ruck. Attacking teams go 7 phases at best 5/6 times per game. That's usually a 12% rate of getting to phase 7. So you have a 12% chance of NOT turning over ball on your half way. 3. You go outside 10. This is the highest risk play, despite the highest % of retaining ball. Balls get to 13 using 3 passes better than 3 forwards carrying into 3 rucks. However the turnover rate outside 12 is 3 times higher. So, in our favourable scenario, the lowest risk smartest play is the kick, it eliminates the risk of conceding a kickable pen, a high % turnover, but not only that of the other 2 options the 2nd smartest play is the lower % attainable posession. If we then add the other factors like defensive strategies, ref tendancies, skill execution under fatigue, context of the score board etc, they all pretty much add to the theory that kicking is the lowest risk play. So to conclude, trying to win a game ball in hand is the easiest way to lose score board equity, and put pressure on yourself and force higher risk plays. Like a black Jack player asking to hit on 17 when the dealer has 5 showing, why would you risk those odds for glory? As we have just witnessed, not losing the scoreboard is far more Important than trying to win, not only SA's recent victories by a mere point on breakdown turnovers, but Fijis revival playing smart and not fancy, every Warren Gatland win ever, Saracens dominance in England, La Rochelles recent upward curve. The fundamental misunderstanding that posession wins games is pivotal here, posession doesnt win games, pressure does, and pressure can be exerted in a myriad of ways. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Andre de Waal High Kicks Theorem
Top