The Truth about Super Finals Footy

Matt Rowley July 18, 2012 19

It’s different when it comes to finals footy right? Tighter games, not many tries scored?

Wrong.

Looking back over the eight finals games played in 2010 and 2011 (two years in the same universe, at least when it comes to breakdown interpretations, thereby affecting scoring) we see that unlike Aussie derbies, Super Rugby finals are anything but dour affairs.

Difference

The average points difference per game is 15.5 — and the only game won within 7 points was last year’s Reds-Saders final.

Tries

The average number of tries scored by the winning team per match is 2.25. (In only two games did the winner score just one try.)

Points

The winning team scores on average 28 points, 15 of them from tries and 13 from penalty goals.

So what?

Well, it does leave us with a conundrum. Five out of our six finalists are in the top half of the try scoring league — the exception being the Stormers, who have the worst try-scoring record (1.8 per match) of the whole Super Rugby competition in 2012, and yet topped the table.

Obviously though, this is balanced out by the fact that they concede the lowest number of tries (1.3 per match), still fewer even than they score.

Will this year’s title be decided ‘as God intended’ — with tries and not kicks?

A storm is brewing.

Stats thanks to Rucking Good Stats

www.simplesharebuttons.comShare the goodness

TAGS » slide, Statistics

POSTED IN » Super Rugby

About the author: Matt Rowley View all posts by Matt Rowley

Matt started G&GR just before the 2007 Rugby World Cup and has been enslaved ever since. Follow him on twitter: @MattRowley

Discussion »

http://www.dumptackle.blogspot.com Philip Bailey

So many variables affect finals footy.

I get the feeling that although the Reds were rampant last year, they were seriously helped by the travel factor which the Crusaders faced.

So, you’ve got to say that it may play a part again.

Everyone sems to be writing off the chiefs now after two successive losses, but perhaps those losses were what they needed so that the didn’t get ahead of themselves and realised how to close out tight matches.

Didn’t do the All Blacks any harm when they lost to the wallabies last year did it?

http://dumptackle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/not-so-serious-super-rugby-2012-awards.html#more
- bill
  
  No it didn’t do the ABs any harm, the french were the better side in the final though. The kiwis were embarrassingly fortunate with the ref in the last 10 or 20 minutes, not that they’ll give a toss.
  - Antony
    
    Really? Do go on…
    - bill
      
      I said during that tournament after we beat the saffas if we kick on and win it with this style of football it’d be a tragedy, so to see the ABs do it with crap football, well… I like the ABs, but that was shit, marginally better than our brand of shit football I admit.But still I wouldn’t be celebrating it if we’d won that way.
- johnny-boy
  
  Well the Crusaders chose to travel to London to play one of their games so they obviously didn’t think travel was such a big deal. It’s always a great excuse to bring up tho to try and explain away your inadequacies and ineffectiveness of serial cheating
  - Pie Thrower
    
    thank god someone else has brought this up. Whilst not denying the Crusaders had a tough year without a home game – the majority of the miles traveled they often cite as the reason for fatigue – were to London and back. Yes it was done to try to gain some money as a result of their stadium being flattened etc etc – but they didn’t have to do it! Your choice boys.
    - Funk
      
      I’m not argueing, just calrifying, the Crusaders did play home games last year, the majority of their allocated home games were played at home, in their province, with parochial home crowd support, they just didn’t play at ther usual home ground. Not taking anything away from the immense effort they put in last year, but I am sick of hearing about how they never played home game. It’s like saying that the Bulls didn’t play at home when they played in Soweto instead of Loftus Versfeld in the 2014 Final.
  - Nabley
    
    If I remember correctly the team they played against travelled to London from NZ via SA effectively the same distance. So both teams were stuffed.
Chris McDonald

I have always thought that attacking rugby wins Super Rugby titles as opposed to World Cups were defence is more imperative. I have looked at this in the past and without having studied it thoroughly, it certainly appears as though the sides that have won the Super Rugby title, and indeed those other sides who have done well, are generally always sides that score numerous tries.
Robson

I agree with Phillip and Bill, IMHO the French were the better side in the RWC final, but “better” doesn’t always translate to “winner” and in this the ABs took their chances when they were on offer. Can’t fault that at all and admittedly some people will argue that taking their chances when they were on offer makes them the better side.

Good arguement that too, but the French came from the position of being a side that seemed dissprited and in dissarray to being a somewhat lucky final contender for the title. The difference from that position to their response to the haka (which was brilliant – and I have performed a few haka in my time too) right through every aspect of their play must give them the title of the most significantly improved team in the RWC tournament.

Just like the French do, they turned it on when it really mattered, so again IMHO they were the better side on the day. They didn’t win, but they turned it in to a fascinatingly contested final; just when all the pundits were glibly saying that the ABs would just walk away with it.

But back to the topic.

I have this vaguely compelling feeling that the Chiefs have actually done their chips. Teams go through form slumps and I think the Chiefs like the Brumbies are having theirs at the wrong end of the season. Time will tell though, but the hype that surrounds SBW is just a little over the top.

The final opportunity the Chiefs got to snatch a win from the jaws of defeat against the Hurricanes came when Sonny Bill decided that he could repeat the feat that scored him his previous try. So instead of passing to unmarked men outside him when a certain try was on offer he underestimated the learning capacity of the Canes and tried to do a Houdini again.

Nope they said, you don’t get two bites of that cherry. On another auspicious occasion Sonny Bill got in the clear and seemed mezmerised by the great expanse of space in front of him and just loped over it like a long distance runner instead of putting his ears back and firing those bigs thighs up to maximum revs. Deservedly he was cut down and the attack died. The Chiefs are also going through a struggle with their scrum and lineouts. The Chiefs would be deserved finalists, but somehow I feel they won’t make it.

The Crusaders, however, are a different kettle of fish and if there is one thing they do tend to suffer from it’s an over abundance of arrogance. I say that without to much vehemence because every top sports team is a top team because of a certain amount of arrogantly held self belief. My feeling is that they have more than their fair share. But I am still picking them to be there as one of the two contenders for the silverware.

Who will be the other one????
- http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley
  
  Good point Robson. I was talking to Michael Lipman last week and it’s his opinion that the Brumbies had gone too hard in the pre-season and faded, whereas the Crusaders and Bulls were peaking at the right time.
  
  Perhaps we can add the Chiefs to the “peaked” list?
  - Chuck
    
    But to be fair to Jake White one of his first jobs would have been to inculcate self belief and a touch of arrogance to the side. That would not have been done by a slow start to the season and an inability to match teams in fitness and speed.
    - Robson
      
      Agree, wouldn’t blame him at all. He’s done a remarkable job with the Brums.
johnny-boy

The impression I got when SBW ‘walked’ in to space was that there weren’t too many Chiefs players eager to back him up. Pretty strange but makes sense given he has dudded them. Everybody assumes the Crusaders will win this weekend but I’m not so sure. They are a shadow of their former selves with serious frailties. Will be interesting to see if the Bulls have picked up on them.
- Robson
  
  Sure, the contest is certainly still wide open and the results from last weekend have shown that.
  
  Whoever the rugby gods have earmarked for finals glory and honour is still unknown to us mere mortals, so we will have to wait and see. My thoughts are only based on feelings that have no scientific let alone paranormal foundations.
  
  I think the Crusaders are playing over there, so in that context the Bulls may well have an edge. All the same I feel very uncertain about the Chiefs chances. As for what chances the Reds have – well I just don’t want to go there!
  - Robson
    
    Oh, I have just seen that the Bulls are playing in Christchurch, so that tips the scales back somewhat. Hard to win in that paraochial town.
    - Nabley
      
      Yes ask the Crusaders about how many times they have lost there!
murph

Cru will win
Cave Dweller

People confuse attacking rugby with good counter attacking rugby. Teams with least possession and best counter attacks made it to the final and both was coached by kiwi’s.