How are World Cups won?

[Gagger]

Winning the world cup may well not come down to scoring tries, but that doesn't mean attacking play won't be key

The Kiwis leaked penalties like a sieve last 3Ns because they trust their try scoring ability will outpoint the oppo's point kicking ability, especially with the interpretations as they were only 6 months ago.

So, assuming the finals are tight affairs on the try scoring front, how do you force the kiwis into leaking penalties? Applying attacking pressure. For Australia - is this more likely to happen through direct forward slugfest or faster play? Think I know which and I think Australia are fairly uniquely placed to apply it, especially having seen France decide to copy England this year.

Speaking of which, England are not some high attacking team. If you think that then you didn't watch much of the Six Nations outside of the Italy match. The leopard hasn't changed its spots, especially under pressure

 

[JimboJoe1006]

World Cups are won by dominance upfront, and a very capable boot to capitalize on the penalties as a result of this forward dominance. Spot the odd one out between: Quade; Morne; Johnny; Stephen (Burke); Joel; Grant!

I did a little bit of stats work, and that the ratio and tries: penalty goals/drop goals for World Cup winning teams is incredibly low;
In 2007, SA scored 33 tries and kicked 21 PG/DG. However, removing the minnows (all apart from 3N, 6N and Argentina) from the equation leaves a ratio of 7:13, including 0:5 in the final.
In 2003, England was 33:31, but removing the minnows it dropped to 3:26!
In 1999, for Australia against top teams it was 7:20 - including 2:16 in the semi and final.
In 1995, SA had a ratio of 3:14 against top teams (Note: I classified Argentina a "minnow" in this competition).
This leaves an overall ratio, for WC winning teams, between 1995-2007, (excluding minnows) of 20:73.

This is quite simply how World Cups are won.

I accept the fact that the laws are now different, and will favour a more open-style of play. However, the example of the Stormers performance in Super Rugby this year shows that the most effective brand of rugby is still definitely not the most exciting.

Assuming ceteris paribus, should the Australian team have been very successful over the past few years, or at least somewhat successful, then I think it would still be a topic of debate as to whether to slightly switch our current style for a more traditional, 'tried-and-tested' WC winning style. Therefore, considering that the Wallabies results have been mediocre at an absolute best, I do not hesitate in stating that Deans and co. should aim to implement a more 10-man rugby style. In saying this, it will be impossible to make any major overhauls so close to August, and regardless of Deans' direction, the Wallabies will possess the most open brand of rugby amongst the major teams at the WC.

 

[aussie1st]

As mentioned good defense and goal kicking are the big keys to winning it. Being able to break the defensive line is next in line so a good attack. A backup gameplan is also needed, we found that out the hard way in the 07 WC and again against the English last year. If things aren't going our way we need to be able to change it up. Forwards need to stand up, we will again struggle if we play like we did against the English last year.

 

[Blue]

True but only a couple of South African teams run the ball, stormers are just the best defensively of them all, and they have yet to face the mighty attacking crusaders and perhaps the Reds. We will see who wins the super 15 at the end of this season, and make a judgement from there.

The mere fact that you compare Super Rugby to World Cup test rugby just about voids anything you've said in the thread.

It's chalk and cheese.

I would just like to clarify that I am not saying a more open game can't win it. It's just that over an entire Cup, it's a percentage game. Continuously looser play will leave a team adamant at running it more often than not vulnerable against an extremely well organised team who will look to shut them down and pry off mistakes. The best example I can recall recently was two years ago when SA beat NZ three times on the trot. The Kiwis came in against the Boks with a plan to run them off their feet. The Bok defense was awesome, Steyn was kicking like a champion, and the decision making from du Preez to get he Boks field position was spot on.

Prob an extreme example but that supports the point.

Running the pill againts all comers will not win you the World Cup.

I still maintain Australia can win the thing with a calculated game plan if all the important cattle are fit. If they are, I am still tipping you guys and I am not suggesting Robbie will have you swinging it wide all the time.

 

[Bruce Ross]

It is almost at the point where people want the Wallabies to lose just so they can say "I told you so".

I'm pretty sure that was the reason Bruce started the thread.

How would you know why I started the thread, thatguy? If I were to do that it would be a notable first. I can honestly say I cannot recall once in my life ever saying, "I told you so. " My view if you're going to do that and are honest with yourself you should also say, "Well I fucked up on that one" whenever you are wrong. My batting average isn't good enough to put myself in that position.

Could it be that I just wanted to draw attention to a statistical pattern that I haven't seen previously referred to?

JimboJoe's subsequent post on the ratio of tries to goals for World Cup winners lends weight to the idea that the pressures of World Cups produce very tight contests.

There is no way that I would ever death ride our national team but I reserve the right to criticise coaches when I don't think they are on the right track.

 

[gone]

How would you know why I started the thread, thatguy? If I were to do that it would be a notable first. I can honestly say I cannot recall once in my life ever saying, "I told you so. " My view if you're going to do that and are honest with yourself you should also say, "Well I fucked up on that one" whenever you are wrong. My batting average isn't good enough to put myself in that position.

Could it be that I just wanted to draw attention to a statistical pattern that I haven't seen previously referred to?

JimboJoe's subsequent post on the ratio of tries to goals for World Cup winners lends weight to the idea that the pressures of World Cups produce very tight contests.

There is no way that I would ever death ride our national team but I reserve the right to criticise coaches when I don't think they are on the right track.

Sometimes I like to be flippant Bruce, maybe you haven't noticed.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Sometimes I like to be flippant Bruce, maybe you haven't noticed.

Nice return of serve, thatguy.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Assuming ceteris paribus, should the Australian team have been very successful over the past few years, or at least somewhat successful, then I think it would still be a topic of debate as to whether to slightly switch our current style for a more traditional, 'tried-and-tested' WC winning style. Therefore, considering that the Wallabies results have been mediocre at an absolute best, I do not hesitate in stating that Deans and co. should aim to implement a more 10-man rugby style. In saying this, it will be impossible to make any major overhauls so close to August, and regardless of Deans' direction, the Wallabies will possess the most open brand of rugby amongst the major teams at the WC.

If we switch to playing a 10 man style, then that's it for me as a fan. Rugby is a running game and I'd rather see us lose having a crack than winning by boring people to death. We've proven countless times over the last 30+ years that entertaining footy can be winning footy. The Grand Slam team of 1984, the Bleddie winning group of 1986 and the RWC winning teams of 1991 and 1999 didn't deviate much at all from the running rugby ethos that for me defines the game in this country. What each of those teams had, however, was a good pack laying the necessary platform on which an attacking game could be based. You can't win the game without the pill, regardless of which playing style you employ.

I don't know why we would suddenly move away from the game plan that has consistently had us in the top two or three rugby nations in the world for a generation.

 

[daz]

Speaking of which, England are not some high attacking team. If you think that then you didn't watch much of the Six Nations outside of the Italy match. The leopard hasn't changed its spots, especially under pressure

I agree Gagger, but what I will say is that England are starting to think more about quick ball and wide attacking play than previous Pom squads, which is worrying. I think they still have a long ways to go, but with Ashton and Youngs out wide and Flood becoming more than a back-up general they are slowly building the potential. They played that way against Italy simply because Italy allowed them to. However, the other 6N teams did not.

The key here is that under pressure or under threat, the Poms have a natural tendancy to revert to gains via forward grind and the inevitable penalty within the opposition half. The Ireland game was a brilliant example of showing how fragile England are under pressure where 3-4 Irish players destroyed the Pom 15.

This is where the 3N teams who have quick, quick, quick go forward ball and gap finding runners as an in-built style are well placed to tear shreds off them. Come September, the Wobs should be much better at it...

 

[daz]

There is no way that I would ever death ride our national team

Plenty of other people who have done just that since Deans was appointed.....

 

[Groucho]

If we switch to playing a 10 man style, then that's it for me as a fan. Rugby is a running game and I'd rather see us lose having a crack than winning by boring people to death. We've proven countless times over the last 30+ years that entertaining footy can be winning footy. The Grand Slam team of 1984, the Bleddie winning group of 1986 and the RWC winning teams of 1991 and 1999 didn't deviate much at all from the running rugby ethos that for me defines the game in this country. What each of those teams had, however, was a good pack laying the necessary platform on which an attacking game could be based. You can't win the game without the pill, regardless of which playing style you employ.

I don't know why we would suddenly move away from the game plan that has consistently had us in the top two or three rugby nations in the world for a generation.

Not to mention that we haven't got the cattle to win any games beyond the pool stages playing 10 man rugby.

We've just won a game against the ABs, and we have won games against all the other major nations, by playing running rugby. We only need to win one game against the ABs if we are to win the RWC. I'd suggest our only hope of winning that game is to play the style we played in Hong Kong. At least we then have a chance.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yep. You play to your strengths, I can't understand why you would do otherwise. If that's not good enough on the day, so be it. I'd be shocked if Deans, at the end of a four year term as coach, all of a sudden walked away from the game plan he's been so careful to build up. If 10 man rugby was our chosen path to world cup glory, I would suggest that we would have build a squad around that methodology by now.

 

[JimboJoe1006]

I suggested that Deans should implement "a more 10-man style of rugby", this does not mean attempting to replicate the 2003 England team. In fact, I went on to state that due to the timing, and simply the type of players we have, whether or not Deans does attempt to play more "10-man rugby" Australia would still "possess the most open brand of rugby amongst the major teams at the WC".

I love when the team I follow shows some of the old razzle-dazzle (I sound like that terrible ad!). In fact, I love it so much, that there is only one thing I love more - when the team I follow is winning! Not saying they are mutually exclusive, however I wouldn't mind the national team adopting a similar approach taken by the only Australian team, State or National, to perform at an above average level over the past few years, the NSW Waratahs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I have no doubt that we would tighten up our game a bit during the knockout stages, but if we were to play too conservative a brand of rugby I think it would actually be counter productive. The reason being that you've got guys who have been encouraged for the last three seasons to be instinctive and "play what's in front of them". If they were suddenly told to play a stricter pattern, I think it would be detrimental due to the players not really being the right kind of make up for that style and it would introduce too much doubt in their minds.

I think we'll probably kick for field position a bit more and that makes sense, as you can't run in tries from your own 22 in a knockout game (well you can if you're France) and achieve a high amount of success. Same with taking points when they are on offer. So a bit of percentage footy is to be expected, but hopefully not to the point where it stifles the natural game of our best attacking players.

 

[James Buchanan]

I think part of knowing how to 'play what is infront of you' involves being smart enough to calculate what is the best option in a circumstance. I think too many people see it as a license to play recklessly; I don't think it needs to be.

Unfortunately, I tend to believe that one Mr. Cooper is one of such individual. I think it shows in his decision making and in his defence. I know there are claims that he has matured this year in his decision making, but still he is doing things like the cross-field kick against the cheetahs. The only thing I can hope is that he is sensible enough to know that if we were 10-9 up in a game, that he shouldn't be pulling stuff like that out.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I agree that Cooper does some reckless things out there from time to time, but I've not seen too much evidence at test level so far. His game has definitely matured this season from what I've seen so far. The other guy who worries me in the pressure situations is Luke Burgess. I reckon his already shaky pass has gone to water on a number of occasions when really under the pump. Genia and Phipps seem to be calmer and more composed in those situations (granted, Phipps hasn't played at the top level yet). I believe Genia is a good influence on Cooper and will take the ball himself and direct traffic if he feels like it's needed. He's more of a general than Cooper is.

 

[Ruggo]

How would you know why I started the thread, thatguy? If I were to do that it would be a notable first. I can honestly say I cannot recall once in my life ever saying, "I told you so. " My view if you're going to do that and are honest with yourself you should also say, "Well I fucked up on that one" whenever you are wrong. My batting average isn't good enough to put myself in that position.

Could it be that I just wanted to draw attention to a statistical pattern that I haven't seen previously referred to?

JimboJoe's subsequent post on the ratio of tries to goals for World Cup winners lends weight to the idea that the pressures of World Cups produce very tight contests.

There is no way that I would ever death ride our national team but I reserve the right to criticise coaches when I don't think they are on the right track.

Bruce I did not single you out in my post. If you got that impretion you have my appologies as it was not my intention as I never play the man. It was a response to the whole anti Deans movement.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Ruggo, my post was in reply to a comment by thatguy who instead of taking it on the chin managed to outsmart me.

The only reason I quoted your post was so that people could understand what thatguy was on about. I didn't think that you were having a dig at me.

 

[disco]

Speaking of which, England are not some high attacking team. If you think that then you didn't watch much of the Six Nations outside of the Italy match. The leopard hasn't changed its spots, especially under pressure

What I did notice with England is that they try to protect a lead when they're in front after 60 minutes & Johnson Brings on Wilkinson & Simon Shaw to finish the game off.

Against Ireland when they had to chase the game with 20 minutes to go they were lost & really had nothing to offer in attack so it would be interesting to see what they have learnt from that loss.

 

[PaarlBok]

Looking at the draw you may meet England in the semi if all goes to plan. Interesting. Wish we could get them in the semis.