Archive for Super 14
Inside The Numbers: Discipline
Posted by: | CommentsIt is a commonly held idea that in rugby teams with good discipline are more successful than those with poor discipline. On the surface this seems to be a sensible argument, teams that give away fewer penalties hand their opponents fewer scoring chances and teams that stay out of the sin bin spend less time at a numerical disadvantage.
Looking at six weeks worth of data, initially this seems to hold true with the Bulls conceding the fewest penalties per game and leading the competition, while the Lions concede the most penalties and are second from bottom. However on closer inspection, the Force are coming dead last in the competition but concede the fourth fewest penalties, while the second placed Stormers sit mid table in terms of discipline.
|
Team
|
Games
|
Penalties
|
PPG
|
Yellow Cards
|
Table
|
|
Lions
|
6
|
67
|
11.2
|
1
|
13
|
|
Hurricanes
|
6
|
66
|
11.0
|
1
|
8
|
|
Chiefs
|
5
|
54
|
10.8
|
2
|
6
|
|
Sharks
|
6
|
61
|
10.2
|
5
|
11
|
|
Waratahs
|
6
|
61
|
10.2
|
2
|
4
|
|
Stormers
|
6
|
61
|
10.2
|
0
|
2
|
|
Brumbies
|
6
|
61
|
10.2
|
0
|
5
|
|
Reds
|
5
|
50
|
10.0
|
4
|
7
|
|
Blues
|
5
|
48
|
9.6
|
2
|
9
|
|
Highlanders
|
6
|
57
|
9.5
|
1
|
12
|
|
Force
|
5
|
47
|
9.4
|
1
|
14
|
|
Crusaders
|
6
|
55
|
9.2
|
1
|
3
|
|
Cheetahs
|
5
|
43
|
8.6
|
0
|
10
|
|
Bulls
|
5
|
34
|
6.8
|
1
|
1
|
So it would seem that discipline is not as big a factor as rugby purists would have you believe. In fact so far there doesn’t even appear to be a tipping point where conceding more than a certain number of penalties per game leads to a lower spot on the table, with the difference between second and 13th being just one penalty per game.
Even with in a game conceding penalties is not a barrier to victory. In 21 games of 39 so far, the team conceding the most penalties has also gone on to win the game.
Perhaps the number of penalties conceded by winning teams has increased with the change of focus at the tackle this year, it’s hard to say as I don’t have that data, but the one thing that is clear is that there is no correlation between penalties and winning.
How low can the Force sink?
Posted by: | CommentsAfter suffering their fourth loss in a row to the Reds in Brisbane last night, it appears the Force have hit rock bottom and started to dig. John Mitchell’s men looked to have no gameplan, no tactics and no idea what they were even doing at Suncorp Stadium in the first place.
Lance Free, over at GreenAndGoldRugby.com, wondered if that was even the real Force who turned up: “Did their bus actually arrive at Suncorp Stadium or is it still lost in the Clem 7 tunnel?”
The numbers for the Force are particularly unflattering, picking up no points from four outings. In face, only one team has gone more than five rounds without picking up a single point, the 2006 Force who managed their first Super 14 competition point in week eight of that season.
In attack the Force have scored just five tries, one more than fellow cellar dwellers the Sharks, and have scored the fewest points in the entire competition. On defense, only the leaky Lions have let in more tries and conceded more points, and the Force also have the widest average margin of defeat: 23 point!
Then of course there were the lineouts, which could be called woeful but that term is not really strong enough. Neither hooker could hit his target consistently and the Reds frequently won opposition ball. With a world class lineout jumper like Nathan Sharpe to aim it, the Force’s lineout struggle really do defy belief sometimes.
All of this paints a picture of a team struggling against superior opposition, but their display against the Reds and the Chiefs, the only Force games I have watched in their entirety, the Force have looked like a team devoid of ideas, and struggling to gel.
Coach Mitchell has had his share of off field issues to deal with during his tenure in Perth, facing a full scale player revolution there last year but somehow retaining his job. This season he has lost many of his best players, including Wallaby playmaker Matt Giteau, and has struggled with injuries in other key positions, but these excuses do not make up for the complete lack of direction the team has shown this season.
The refusal to play James O’Connor at fly half, a position he played at schoolboy level, is perhaps the more bizarre of the decisions Mitchell has made this season. After losing Giteau back to the Brumbies and Andres Pretorius to a season ending injury before week one, it would seem that O’Connor was the logical choice to step up, but instead he continued to play at fullback while New Zealand journeyman David Hill was brought into the team.
Mitchell seems to be the teflon man in Perth as nothing has stuck to him in the past, but his past is rapidly catching up to him. A brief stint as England assistant coach, followed by a disastrous tenure as All Black coach, now a number of mediocre season in Perth, you have to wonder who would hire John Mitchell next. A few more performances like Sunday night, and Mitchell could be the first Super 14 coach of 2010 to hit the unemployment line, but even sacking the coach is unlikely to salvage this season for the Force who look destined to finish bottom of the table.
An interview with the referee
Posted by: | CommentsAs the new era of openness and accountability for referees is upon us, I got my first opportunity to interview a referee, Chris Pollock, after the Crusaders vs Sharks game on Friday night. I’ve spoken to referees after games before, including a long conversation with Stu Dickinson last year, but until Friday these conversations have always been off the record.
The first thing I notice as I approach Chris is that none of the major print media outlets seem interested in him. In fact, after talking to Sky TV, it’s just me, a freelancer and a couple of students from the NZ School of Broadcasting who approach Chris.
Immediately I realize I’m leading this interview for all the others so I start off by introducing myself to Chris, who immediately asks if I’m related to David McBrearty, a former Air New Zealand Cup referee coach and my father. I think this is getting off to a good start.
First question is an easy one for Chris, in a game free from what assessors would call “critical incidents”, how had he enjoyed the game? Chris tells me that it was an enjoyable game to referee, but he would reserve judgment on his performance until he had checked the tape of the game later.
Thinking this is a fair, if slightly stock and meaningless answer, I press on with my sole “hard” question: There seem to have been a number of issues at scrum time, was this a case of being unable to initially identify the culprit or giving the players a chance to sort it out themselves?
“I thought pre-engagement they were very good and compliant,” he answers, “But after engagement it was very competitive. You had two international players going up against each other and just giving it a good crack.”
The other notable feature of the game, from a refereeing stand point, was the amount of chatter from the players. Referees are never short of advice, but from what I observed, this seemed to be a bit more than usual.
“Everyone’s in to wanting to have a crack,” says Chris, “It’d be boring if they didn’t.”
Finally I ask how he enjoys refereeing the Crusaders. Chris tells me they are a positive team who play an attractive brand of rugby and are always a pleasure to referee, which is a fairly pragmatic answer to give in the players’ tunnel under AMI Stadium.
As I conclude, I can’t resist a cheeky question about his refereeing colleagues and how they are to work with. Chris’s face suddenly breaks into a broad smile. “Terrible, just awful these Canterbury boys,” he says grinning mischievously.
I look up and spot Kane McBride, the TMO, over Chris’s shoulder who returns the grin and I know that these guys share a wonderful passion and camaraderie for one of the toughest jobs in rugby.
As I reflect on the interview, it was somewhat strange to pick apart the referee’s performance and then ask him to account for certain aspects of his game, but giving the fans an incite into how the referees think and critique their own performance can only make the game more accessible. However, as a referee myself I will try to extend a certain level of professional courtesy to the referees and refrain from asking questions like, “Why did you miss so many forward passes?” as was suggested by one reporter after the game.
Inside The Numbers: Week 1
Posted by: | CommentsThe first Wednesday of the 2010 Super 14 season means it’s time for my first Inside The Numbers column of the year. Since the major talking point of week one was the much harsher refereeing of the breakdown area, I’ll be taking a look at how this has affected scoring in the competition.
Two of Fairfax’s star rugby writers, Toby Robson and Duncan Johnstone, penned stories noting that try scoring is down on week one in 2009. They are, of course, correct but perhaps taking too narrow a view of the stats.
Week one of 2010 produced 30 tries, while week one of 2009 gave us 45, a drop of 33%! But the full story is, week one of the 2009 Super 14 was a blip with only week 13 producing more tries (46) and only four weeks out of 14 producing more than 40 tries.
The average number of tries scored in a week in 2009 was 35.57 and three weeks actually produced fewer than 30 tries, so perhaps the drop in try scoring during the first week can be put down to another statistical blip.
So while the esteemed rugby writers of the world pen their editorial columns bemoaning the lack of attacking rugby and claiming that the tough new breakdown interpretations have failed to achieve their goal of more running rugby, because it’s too early to make that kind of comparison yet. One round does not make a season, and the final judgment can really only be made at the end of the round robin.
And here’s an interesting little anomaly: there were actually more points scored in week one of 2010 than in week one of 2009.
Is the media mature enough to interview referees?
Posted by: | CommentsIn an effort to be more open with the media and public, SANZAR are now allowing match referees to front the media before and after games. While this will hopefully give fans an incite into how a referee goes about one of the toughest jobs on the pitch, will the notoriously fickle media be able to hold back some of their less warranted criticisms of the match officials?
Unfortunately it would already appear that 3 News have shown they lack restraint and a little maturity with their first piece of the season about referee Stu Dickinson.
The introduction to the story contains the claim that Dickinson racked up one of the highest penalty counts in Super rugby history. Now claim reeks of a lack of fact checking and reporter putting their own spin on a story with no regard for facts.
Firstly, with the new interpretations of the tackle ball law coming into effect and players reverting to bad habits as they tired, the penalty count was always going to be higher than usual. And that doesn’t even take into account the participants, the Blues and Hurricanes, are not exactly known for their discipline.
Secondly, I seriously doubt that 25 penalties (yes, that’s how many Dickinson gave out, some of us were counting) is “one of the highest penalty counts in Super rugby history.” Just a quick look at some of the other games from this round, Craig Joubert also dished out 25 penalties, while Keith Brown gave out 23 and Jaco Peyper blew 21, yet somehow I don’t see Brooke Sabin doing a story about a record number of penalties being given in the opening round.
Sabin then asks the viewer if Dickinson was refereeing a game of rugby, or trying out for an orchestra followed by a montage of Dickinson blowing his whistle. Another element carefully chosen to portray Dickinson in a poor light.
The claim of blowing his whistle more than 30 times baffles me a little, we know there were 25 penalties, so were there only a few scrums and lineouts in that game, or did Sabin pick “blowing his whistle” as an expression in an attempt to have the view believe that the penalty count was higher than it was (25).
But once again, I come back to my old adage that if the players don’t infringe, the referee won’t blow his whistle. Even Dickinson himself said, “I don’t like blowing a lot of penalties but if it has to be done, it has to be done.”
Referee Dickinson set his standards early on in the game as to what he expected at the tackle, as the referees have been asked to do by the coaches themselves, but the players failed to adjust, yet TV 3 decide to run this thinly veiled hit piece on the referee rather than asking the coaches and players why they did not heed the warning.
Fortunately other media outlets were a little more restrained in their coverage, with Sportal noting that the tackle ball interpretations were known to all Super 14 teams and players would need time to adjust to the way it was being refereed.
So TV 3 and Brook Sabin, you win the first ever Sports After Dark yellow journalism award for intentionally fueling the perception that Dickinson performed poorly, and was to entirely to blame for the somewhat high penalty count on Friday. Perhaps a review of the facts before putting that sort of story to air could be in order…
UPDATE: Having checked up on this story further, it appears TV 3 trimmed a quote from Blues’ coach Pat Lam to suit their agenda on this story.
TV 3 quoted Lam as saying, “I know there were some frustrations on behalf of the players on some of the calls made.” He did say this but added in the same sentence: “but we’ve got to take responsibility. At the end of the day 27 points [from penalties] and an intercept try speaks for itself.”
Disgusting
