Rugby Match Statistics

[soso7df]

Hi All,

I am a newbee here.

I came searching for information on where can I find match-level statistics on as many rugby games as possible (current, archive - all of them). Can someone of you experts point me to some resources?

Thanks so much!
SoSo

 

[Shovenose]

You can try ESPN Scrum

But be careful with stats. If your looking at the stats of games played make sure you know the style of the team otherwise it will look wrong and misleading.

 

[Feicarsinn]

True. For example, some of the South African statistics would lead you to thinking they're capable of player an open, attractive game.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

True. For example, some of the South African statistics would lead you to thinking they're capable of player an open, attractive game.

 

[Shovenose]

True. For example, some of the South African statistics would lead you to thinking they're capable of player an open, attractive game.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I'm not that sure what you're trying to say here.

 

[lucky number 7]

Numbers.. lots of them

 

[Shovenose]

I'm not that sure what you're trying to say here.

See OP this is the reason why you should know the styles of the teams before looking at stats otherwise they will not make much sense.

People forget NZ are a counter attacking team. They are not adventurous throwing the ball around running from their 22. That is another misconception. That is why NZ have a strangle hold on most of the teams in the world and they have such a good record. They score most of their tries from kick returns followed by turn overs.

So they want you to kick it down their throats. SA make use of tactical kicking. The concept is get the ball in your opponents territory and force them into mistakes. That is why you will see our wingers are not just speedy guys who can only run with a ball but they have good defensive capabilities as well.

If your tactical kicking is not up to standard they are going to run in a lot of tries against you. That is why they will concede a lot of penalties as well because of trying to win a turn overs to start the counter. SA tactical kicking was pathetic and got smashed.

Then you get Ireland who tries to hold up the tackler so the ball do not go to ground and win a turn over from the set pieces hence the 60 - 0 score line and SBW scoring two tries.

 

[lucky number 7]

See OP this is the reason why you should know the styles of the teams before looking at stats otherwise they will not make much sense.

People forget NZ are a counter attacking team. They are not adventurous throwing the ball around running from their 22. That is another misconception. That is why NZ have a strangle hold on most of the teams in the world and they have such a good record. They score most of their tries from kick returns followed by turn overs.

So they want you to kick it down their throats. SA make use of tactical kicking. The concept is get the ball in your opponents territory and force them into mistakes. That is why you will see our wingers are not just speedy guys who can only run with a ball but they have good defensive capabilities as well.

If your tactical kicking is not up to standard they are going to run in a lot of tries against you. That is why they will concede a lot of penalties as well because of trying to win a turn overs to start the counter. SA tactical kicking was pathetic and got smashed.

Then you get Ireland who tries to hold up the tackler so the ball do not go to ground and win a turn over from the set pieces hence the 60 - 0 score line and SBW scoring two tries.

Paddy Wallace

 

[Feicarsinn]

See OP this is the reason why you should know the styles of the teams before looking at stats otherwise they will not make much sense.

People forget NZ are a counter attacking team. They are not adventurous throwing the ball around running from their 22. That is another misconception. That is why NZ have a strangle hold on most of the teams in the world and they have such a good record. They score most of their tries from kick returns followed by turn overs.

So they want you to kick it down their throats. SA make use of tactical kicking. The concept is get the ball in your opponents territory and force them into mistakes. That is why you will see our wingers are not just speedy guys who can only run with a ball but they have good defensive capabilities as well.

If your tactical kicking is not up to standard they are going to run in a lot of tries against you. That is why they will concede a lot of penalties as well because of trying to win a turn overs to start the counter. SA tactical kicking was pathetic and got smashed.

Then you get Ireland who tries to hold up the tackler so the ball do not go to ground and win a turn over from the set pieces hence the 60 - 0 score line and SBW scoring two tries.

Yup, you got me, we're a bad rugby team. However, that doesn't mean that New Zealand don't play fantastic rugby, something that seems to have you incredibly butt hurt.

 

[Shovenose]

Yup, you got me, we're a bad rugby team. However, that doesn't mean that New Zealand don't play fantastic rugby, something that seems to have you incredibly butt hurt.

What is with the insults and the bad attitude? When did I say they don't play good rugby? They are world champions and have the best winning ratio of any team out there. Add to that they are basically a Island which makes it a fantastic achievement. They have a style of play which they been using for decades just like any other team have their style of play. Trying to change that suddenly will not get you anywhere as its a process that is implemented from knee height and up. If you only watch rugby because of guys throwing the ball around then go watch the seven games.

 

[Feicarsinn]

What is with the insults and the bad attitude?

Lulz.

When did I say they don't play good rugby?

"They are not adventurous throwing the ball around"

They are world champions and have the best winning ratio of any team out there. Add to that they are basically a Island which makes it a fantastic achievement.

I fail to see what their geographical situation has to do with it. Ireland and Australia are islands too.

They have a style of play which they been using for decades just like any other team have their style of play. Trying to change that suddenly will not get you anywhere as its a process that is implemented from knee height and up.

Lots of teams change their style of play. See England pre 2003 compared to England in 2003. They used to play quite an expansive game, but as the WC grew nearer, they got a lot more conservative. Similarly, we changed our style of play in 2009, winning us a grand slam. Ease up on the sweeping statements

If you only watch rugby because of guys throwing the ball around then go watch the seven games.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, wasn't it?

 

[lucky number 7]

Rugby

 

[Draggs]

Rugby

Wrong forum mate.

 

[Shovenose]

Lulz.



"They are not adventurous throwing the ball around"

So you are disagreeing and imply that when in their own 22 they run the ball or they do not kick the ball as much as SA?

I fail to see what their geographical situation has to do with it. Ireland and Australia are islands too.

Australia is not a Island and Ireland have not being doing much in world rugby.

Lots of teams change their style of play. See England pre 2003 compared to England in 2003. They used to play quite an expansive game, but as the WC grew nearer, they got a lot more conservative. Similarly, we changed our style of play in 2009, winning us a grand slam. Ease up on the sweeping statements

Australia is not a Island its a island continent and Ireland have not being doing much in world rugby. England wasn't expansive. They did exactly what NZ are doing. They had Johnson and Dellaglio to manipulate the ref, a chirpy scrumhalf to show the referee that they are doing their part to stay on the good side of the law and Johnny Wilkinson to boot everything over of the penalties they get. They still played the tactical game and were far from adventurous.

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, wasn't it?

Eh? You are mistaking throwing the ball around with great counter attacking capabilities. Wilson. Kirwan, Cullen all were great counter attackers. That is why the back three is so important to them.

 

[lucky number 7]

Wrong forum mate.

***s!


On a more serious note...



Rugby is class and fun.

 

[lucky number 7]

So you are disagreeing and imply that when in their own 22 they run the ball or they do not kick the ball as much as SA?


Australia is not a Island and Ireland have not being doing much in world rugby.


Australia is not a Island its a island continent and Ireland have not being doing much in world rugby. England wasn't expansive. They did exactly what NZ are doing. They had Johnson and Dellaglio to manipulate the ref, a chirpy scrumhalf to show the referee that they are doing their part to stay on the good side of the law and Johnny Wilkinson to boot everything over of the penalties they get. They still played the tactical game and were far from adventurous.


Eh? You are mistaking throwing the ball around with great counter attacking capabilities. Wilson. Kirwan, Cullen all were great counter attackers. That is why the back three is so important to them.

Aside from stuffing SA 3/4 in recent years...but I agree , childsplay

 

[Feicarsinn]

So you are disagreeing and imply that when in their own 22 they run the ball or they do not kick the ball as much as SA?

First point no, they kick from their 22. Of course they do. Second point, they almost certainly don't kick as much ball away as South Africa. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is that they don't kick as much good ball away as South Africa. South Africa are incredibly wasteful, New Zealand are not. They're also much less predictable. For example, if Ireland were defending against South Africa I wouldn't be too worried. Stick Rob Kearney at the back to catch high ball all day and Paul O'Connell to challenge at the lineout and you have them. However, if you try to close New Zealand down out wide, they come through the centre. If you try to beat them up up front the play it through the backs. They can tactically out kick you, out play you in the backs and in the forwards and expose all of your weaknesses, whereas South Africa do not. This is what I mean when I say New Zealand are the best team in the world. Variety of playing styles.

Australia is not a Island and Ireland have not being doing much in world rugby.

I fail to see how Australia isn't an island. It's the only country on its landmass and is surrounded by sea. Sounds like an island to me. Why should being an island have any effect on your rugby playing ability?

England wasn't expansive

.

Haha, you have a very short memory. England were certainly expansive. That back line of Dawson, Wilkinson, Catt, Greenwood, Cohen, Robinson, Lewsey was one of the best I've ever seen. Sure they took the occasional DG, but some of the tries they scored were simply incredible. Here's a quick reminder:

Eh? You are mistaking throwing the ball around with great counter attacking capabilities. Wilson. Kirwan, Cullen all were great counter attackers. That is why the back three is so important to them.

No I'm not. The to usually go hand in hand. Most good counter attacks involve some good passing. In any case, New Zealand do more than score off the counter, whatever you say.

 

[Shovenose]

First point no, they kick from their 22. Of course they do. Second point, they almost certainly don't kick as much ball away as South Africa. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is that they don't kick as much good ball away as South Africa. South Africa are incredibly wasteful, New Zealand are not. They're also much less predictable. For example, if Ireland were defending against South Africa I wouldn't be too worried. Stick Rob Kearney at the back to catch high ball all day and Paul O'Connell to challenge at the lineout and you have them. However, if you try to close New Zealand down out wide, they come through the centre. If you try to beat them up up front the play it through the backs. They can tactically out kick you, out play you in the backs and in the forwards and expose all of your weaknesses, whereas South Africa do not. This is what I mean when I say New Zealand are the best team in the world. Variety of playing styles.

I already explained the different game plans of both teams. Posted you the areas where they score most of their tries from. Let Wayne Smith explain it to you

We played a territory game and my brief was to keep the ball in front of the forwards. It removed the element of risk. If your forwards were on top and your kicking was accurate, then you won the test match. Simple as that. But what is rugby without an element of risk.

Back in the sixties kicking had reached epidemic proportions because a player could kick the ball out on the full from anywhere on the pitch. One match between Wales and Scotland featured 111 lineouts and so they changed the laws.

In the 70's matters hadn't moved on that far. Ray Prosser, the famous Pontypool coach, said he didn't mind his 9 having the ball every now and then, but if it reached his number 10, then he became suspicious. That was a move and Prosser 'ated moves.

Professionalism did much to change rugby's emphasis. When I returned to New Zealand in 2004, kicking was no longer a big part of the national psyche. In New Zealand players were passing 8-10 times for every kick. It was too much. South Africa won a World Cup passing about 3 times for every kick. That was too little and so the IRB modified the laws to remove the fear from possession.

The kick has now become a significant attacking weapon. You might use it as an immediate attacking option, as Carter did when sliding a ball through from his own 22 to set up a try against South Africa in the 2011 Tri Nations. Or you might use it to prompt a weak defensive kick in return and create a ball to counter attack from as the All Blacks did against Australia at Eden Park last year.

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_posts/40-wayne-s-world-kicking-by-wayne-smith
Our boring predictable rugby brought us two world cups. Something you will only dream about. You do not know what make us tick. This man does. Again Wayne Smith

Back in 2009 South Africa beat the All Blacks in all three matches between the two nations. At the time we felt they were different to other teams. They had an edge. We decided to find out what it was that set the 2007 world champions apart.

So when South Africa invited us into their changing room after the first test in Bloemfontein, we accepted. We were keen to talk to them and understand their motivation better. What impressed us first of all was how respectful they were as people. They were very polite and they had great respect for the both the All Blacks tradition and the All Blacks group.

We then got beaten the following week in Durban and again went into the South African changing room. Back in New Zealand we lost to the Boks in Hamilton and invited them to the post match gathering with friends and family. We were getting to know them.

We were realising that the South Africans weren't just playing for their country, but for something more. They were representing the transformation of their country. Men like John Smit, Victor Matfield, Jean de Villiers and Brian Habana were leading the way.

In New Zealand we tend to be task orientated. Yes, there is great pride in the jersey and the history, but we realised that we needed to look for something more. We had to go up a level emotionally if we were to match South Africa.

That change in focus put us on the track to the World Cup. Beating South Africa 3-0 in 2010 was a huge part of winning the Webb Ellis trophy, just as winning test matches in the Southern Hemisphere was vital to England's success in 2003.

I played with Schalk Burger's dad for the Southern Hemisphere against the Northern Hemisphere in 1986 and it was wonderful to get to know the son. He is tough, competitive, respectful, a great man to have a beer with. Jean de Villers is another strong, honest man. You can see their character in the Stormers.

The Chiefs beat the Bulls last week by meeting the challenge head on. That is what you have to do against South African teams. You need strong body language, good tackle technique, smart defence and a big heart or they will come straight over the top of you. And they will keep coming.

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_posts/213-rugby-means-more-to-south-africa-by-wayne-smith

I fail to see how Australia isn't an island. It's the only country on its landmass and is surrounded by sea. Sounds like an island to me. Why should being an island have any effect on your rugby playing ability?

A continent is distinguished from an island or a peninsula not merely by greater size but also by geological structure and development. Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia are the continents. Didn't you learn that in school?

Australia - Population 20,600,856 (2008 estimate)
NZ - Population 4,154,311 (2008 estimate)
Small population world beaters???
.

Haha, you have a very short memory. England were certainly expansive. That back line of Dawson, Wilkinson, Catt, Greenwood, Cohen, Robinson, Lewsey was one of the best I've ever seen. Sure they took the occasional DG, but some of the tries they scored were simply incredible. Here's a quick reminder:

Its a highlight package of 2 years and it contain less tries than a Cheetahs Bulls game. What makes that expansive?

No I'm not. The to usually go hand in hand. Most good counter attacks involve some good passing. In any case, New Zealand do more than score off the counter, whatever you say.

That was done by Jake White btw. One of the great tactical analyzers of the modern game. 24 Percent from kick returns. Then that man Wayne Smith again

Counter attack dominates try scoring in the modern game, it needs to be coached.

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_posts/138-wayne-smith-counter-attack-trailer-by-wayne-smith

Ba Doom Tisss

 

[Feicarsinn]

Ah, I see you've gone into 'post massive obscure articles because you can't actually make a point on your own' mode. It's all right mate.

Anyway, I fail to see how your articles help your argument at all. The second one for example:

"The Chiefs beat the Bulls last week by meeting the challenge head on. That is what you have to do against South African teams. You need strong body language, good tackle technique, smart defence and a big heart or they will come straight over the top of you. And they will keep coming."

So, essentially what Smith is saying here is that the Chiefs were able to change their style of play to overcome the Bulls. They were able to adapt their game. Sounds an awful lot like the ability New Zealand have to vary their game that I alluded to above. You're making the argument yourself in the Reds vs Sharks thread that the Sharks have been unable to adapt their style to a so called 'New Zealand' game type. This would seem to validate my point that it is the ability of New Zealand (and by extension their franchises) to vary and adapt their game that makes them the best team in the world, whereas (by your own admission) South African sides aren't able to do this to the same extent.

Our boring predictable rugby brought us two world cups. Something you will only dream about. You do not know what make us tick. This man does. Again Wayne Smith

I don't deny the fact that South Africa won two world cups. But that's not a reflection of where they are now. They've endured a torrid couple of seasons and we highly unimpressive during the World Cup. It has looked since the 2009 end of year tours that teams have figured them out. Losses to New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Northampon and Saracens would seem to back this fact up. The test series against England did little to banish doubts. If I were a South African fan, I'd be far from happy.

A continent is distinguished from an island or a peninsula not merely by greater size but also by geological structure and development. Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia are the continents. Didn't you learn that in school?

Australia - Population 20,600,856 (2008 estimate)
NZ - Population 4,154,311 (2008 estimate)
Small population world beaters???

They all broke off from Pangea, at some stage, I've never seen the different between the size of one island and the other. The continent is called Oceania, and encompasses New Zealand. In any case, this is completely beside the point. If you'd just said it was an impressive feat due to their small population at the beginning as opposed to that silly island comment I wouldn't have to deal with this baffonery.

Its a highlight package of 2 years and it contain less tries than a Cheetahs Bulls game. What makes that expansive?

Well done, you've completely missed the point. The point of this video was to show that England did indeed play with flair. There are some outstanding back line moves in that package. If I'd wanted to bulk up the try count I easily could have. But that's a stat, and as you say, stats are often pointless.


I'm ending this argument now. I have better ways to waste my time than this. If you want to think that SOUTH AFRICA R TEH BEST!!!!1!!one1! then go ahead.