RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:My question is more along the lines of why has goal kicking become a mandatory part of being a first five eighth?

Kicking in general is, but if someone is better from the tee, then use them.

canta_brian wrote:My question is more along the lines of why has goal kicking become a mandatory part of being a first five eighth?

If you think about it, it makes sense. The first-five stands one-off the ruck, and is responsible for a lot of the tactical decision making. The person in that role is well served by having the ability to kick in general play. If they have those general kicking and ball-handling skills, they're likely to be good at kicking goals. Fullbacks are also often required to kick, and are therefore probably the second-most likely position to be a goalkicker. The skill-set required to be good at 10 or 15 means you're likely to be good at goal-kicking. Seems logical to me. There are some exceptions, of course.

Continuing with that theme, props are required to push hard in scrums, requiring strong legs. Strong legs are well suited to kicking balls a long way, therefore logically prop is the best choice for goal kicking. :-p

I'm with the cantab on this one. Similarly (kind of), is it a rule that the hooker has to be the one that throws the ball into line outs? Why not a lanky lock for instance?

If you can win with wonky kickage at 10, then more power to you. You don't want to be selecting solely on kicking ability, I agree.

J Dory wrote:Continuing with that theme, props are required to push hard in scrums, requiring strong legs. Strong legs are well suited to kicking balls a long way, therefore logically prop is the best choice for goal kicking. :-p

I'm with the cantab on this one. Similarly (kind of), is it a rule that the hooker has to be the one that throws the ball into line outs? Why not a lanky lock for instance?

Logically, you'd think the halfback would be the most accurate thrower-inner to lineouts. I guess the convention of hookers doing it came about from the tactical advantage of keeping the blindside wing back as a second fullback (who used to be responsible for throwing in), and the hooker being typically the shortest forward and therefore in theory the most useless lineout winner.

morepork wrote:If you can win with wonky kickage at 10, then more power to you. You don't want to be selecting solely on kicking ability, I agree.

Start doing that and you may as well be England. You'll be anointing Saint Johnny of kickalot as the chosen one and marvelling at the pre kick squatting routines of slightly too big men in slightly too small shorts

Heh. We're polluting the purity of Lizard's stats thread with conversation. Sticking it to the man.

Yep the % of posts with % in will be dropping.

Isn't this the qualitative anecdotal philosophy Fred?

This is an inclusive fred which welcomes all discussion relating to and engendered by considerations of statistical revelations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seeing as we’re talking about non-10 kickers, most test penalties in a particular position (combining 12/13, 11/14, 6/7, 4/5 and 1/3 out of sheer laziness):


1. Okey Geffin (SA) 10
2. Viliami Pahulu (TON) 4
3. Josefa Rauto (FIJ) 8
4. John Eales (AUS) 34
5. Tiny Naude (SA) 11
6. Jorge Zerbino (URU) 27
7. Yoshiharu Yamaguchi (JAP) 18
8. Peter Brown (SCO) 14
9. Greig Laidlaw (SCO) 106
10. Dan Carter (NZL) 281
11. Mirco Bergamasco (ITA) 49
12. Thierry Lacroix (FRA) 67
13. Florin Vlaicu (ROM) 148
14. Chris Paterson (SCO) 86
15. Gavin Hastings (SCO) 160

The Scots seem to be world leaders at spreading goal-kicking duties around the backs. SA remain world leaders in nicknames. The mid-ranked and minnow teams seem more prepared to give a forward a go, especially flankers for some reason.

That's some nice statage Liz. Are you able to compile best percentage stats for each position?

J Dory wrote:That's some nice statage Liz. Are you able to compile best percentage stats for each position?

Goal kicking %? No.

So, the All Blacks are on their longest winning streak (by games played) with 18 on the trot.

The average score in those 18 tests has been 42-14, which is pretty amazing.

But here's the really amazing part. Those 18 tests included a World Cup run in which New Zealand had a ridiculously easy ride playing Namibia, Georgia, Tonga and a horribly out of touch France. Average score in that World Cup? 41-14.

So they've actually improved on that this year without playing a single minnow.

But here's the really, really amazing part. Against SA and Australia, the average score barely changes: 38-13.

That's an average PD of 25.

To put that in perspective, all other nations combined, including the Lions, have beaten Aussie or SA by 25+ only 12 times ever. No one else has done it since the 2013 (Lions v Aussie and SA v Aussie). NZ has done it 6 times since then, including 4 this year alone.

Interesting that, although I think South Africa alone was responsible for keeping the All Blacks' average down at the RWC, so it doesn't quite follow that the Springboks (or Wallabies) are providing as easy pickings for New Zealand as the minnows they encountered in the group stages last year. But there is no doubt the current All Blacks team is in a class of its own. That's something for New Zealanders to celebrate but fans of the international game to rue. It reminds me a lot of the shamateur era in New Zealand provincial rugby between 2 & 3 decades ago, when everyone was too busy raving about the mighty Aucks to notice many other provinces were falling on increasingly difficult times - at least partly for that reason.

There were rumors of intentional "over training" before the minnows games in the WC, I wonder if there was anything in it?

J Dory wrote:There were rumors of intentional "over training" before the minnows games in the WC, I wonder if there was anything in it?

I'm sure it was more than rumours.

6N v 3N in the profession era:

England: played 74, won 25, lost 46, drawn 3 (35.8%)
France: P 60, W 15, L 43. D 2 (26.7%)
Ireland: P 46, W 9, L 36, D 1 (20.7%)
Scotland: P 44, W 4, L 40 (9.1%)
Wales: P 62, W 4, L 57, D 1 (7.3%)
Italy: P 31, L 31 (0.0%)

About half of England's win came during the early 2000s didn't they?

cashead wrote:About half of England's win came during the early 2000s didn't they?

Yep. 12/25 in a four year period.

By RWC cycle:
1996-1999: 1 win, 2 draws from 14 tests (14.3%)
2000-2003: 12 wins (consecutively) from 13 (92.3%)
2004-2007: 4 from 17 (23.5%)
2008-2011: 2 from 12 (16.7%)
2012-2015: 3 wins, 1 draw from 15 (23.3%)
2016-: 3 from 3 (100%) so far

To put that 2003 streak in context, NZ has never won more than 8 in a row v SA/Aus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And to put that in context, NZ has won 8 in a row three times, including a current, live run.

SA's best v NZ and Aus is 7, set in 1937-1953.

Aust has never won more than 3 in a row v NZ and Aust

The crazy thing about this All Blacks side is that what they're doing (have already done, considering the record win streak) ought not to be possible.

They lost 700+ test caps experience after the RWC, among them two of the greatest ever players of the game.

Are they "rebuilding"? Did they suffer a years long dip in performance? Did they even fecking notice?!?

No, they've actually got better. It shouldn't be possible, but there it is. Hats off to Shags and the rest of the staff and team. An amazing achievement.

Lizard, got any stats ideas for comparative post-RWC retirement performances?

scuzzaman wrote:The crazy thing about this All Blacks side is that what they're doing (have already done, considering the record win streak) ought not to be possible.

They lost 700+ test caps experience after the RWC, among them two of the greatest ever players of the game.

Are they "rebuilding"? Did they suffer a years long dip in performance? Did they even fecking notice?!?

No, they've actually got better. It shouldn't be possible, but there it is. Hats off to Shags and the rest of the staff and team. An amazing achievement.

Lizard, got any stats ideas for comparative post-RWC retirement performances?

I've done that before, on an old board. The short version is the post-1987 All Blacks were awesome for another year (but didn't suffer many retirements as these days now the 4-year cycle is set). The 2003 England team suffered a precipitous and immediate decline. Everyone else was relatively poor except the 2011/15 All Blacks who we are all familiar with.

No doubt Lizard is going to be busy on this thread later after the stunner in Chicago, but that was obviously Ireland's first ever win over the All Blacks, meaning only Scotland from the so-called foundation 8 member unions of World Rugby have yet to beat them (don't hold your breath on that count either). Does that also make Ireland just the 6th team ever to beat NZ (if we don't count Rhodesia/Zimbabwe), & Ireland's 40 points was surely one of the highest tallies ever posted against the All Blacks.