Statistics and damning truths

A worrying trend, ahead of the first Tri-Nations test against the All Blacks, is the inability of the Springboks to hold onto the ball.

It is said statistics are damned lies but my figures of the three tests in a row against the Wallabies show that in the crucial area of ball retention the Boks continue to come up short.

Over the years I have developed a system of keeping stats on big matches to help with quick post-match analysis. Things such as penalties received and conceded, which players win lineout ball and retention of the ball.

There was a time that this latter statistic was not that important. We talked of “loose ball” and it was quite a revelation in the late 70s and early 80s when coaches started to refer to “second phase.”

In time second phase became a ridiculous term as teams took the ball through numerous stages of play and I was forced to develop my own count for ball retention.

This is a count I keep of the times a team takes the ball into contact, and retains it, and I also count in passes made in close-contact situations as being part of the quest to hold onto the ball.

As I have previously mentioned the Brumbies took this attribute to unprecedented levels, it obviously also became a feature of the play of Wallaby teams and gradually most teams came to the realisation that the team with the ball dictates terms.

While not having access to the detailed performance analysis that is at Jake White’s disposal my own stats show that the Springboks either give the ball up too easily or fail to control or “protect” it adequately.

For instance in the three recent test the Boks “lost” my ball retention count 77-43 in Sydney, 73-51 at Ellis Park and 50-33 at Loftus. There is an interesting correlation that their best all-round performance was at Ellis Park and it is worrying that at Loftus their standards had slipped so drastically in just a week.

It is puzzling that professional players (who do almost nothing else but practise rugby) can be so inconsistent. Whereas the Boks managed to produce numerous strong phases at Ellis Park they seemed, at times, incompetent at Loftus as they either failed to protect and seal off the ball in contact situations or persistently moved it to players in isolated and precarious positions; allowing the like of George Smith and Phil Waugh to wreak havoc.

It might be a factor of the combination of loose forwards we have been picking but this tendency (to not control possession) was also evident against the French and against the All Blacks, whose focus on keeping the ball reached exceptional levels against the British Lions, it will be suicidal.

The All Blacks, largely thanks to the Canterbury influence, prey on loose or turned over ball, when defences are either out of alignment or in disarray, and the key to beating them is to make their forwards turn and prevent their backs from taking the ball on the front foot.

The All Blacks might well be rusty, and perhaps even lacking in focus, after their heroic efforts against the Lions and if the Boks are to win they must start like they did against the Wallabies at Ellis Park, gain the initiative, and then keep up the pressure.

Another interesting facet, revealed by the numbers, is that for all our talk about the might of our scrum there was not a single heel against the head against the Wallabies and in all the tests the apparent ascendancy of our scrum, rather than striking home what appeared to be an advantage, waned.

In other aspects the figures were good. We have rid ourselves of the tendency to be on the wrong side of penalty counts while our lineouts (thanks in large part to Victor Matfield) have been impressive but to beat the All Blacks we will have to be perfect in all aspects and treat the ball as a precious commodity.

I have mentioned Kitch Christie’s philosophy before but it bears repeating. “You can’t score if you haven’t got the ball.”