Guess that game

From this past weekend, three games.

Look at the stats for kicks, runs, defenders beaten, possession/territory and try to figure out who won each game, Team A (on the left side of the stat columns) or Team B (right side of stat column)?

Game 1

Kick/pass/run13Kicks from hand16207Passes145173Runs129641Metres run with ball512Attacking58% (57%/59%)Possession (1H/2H)42% (43%/41%)56% (54%/59%)Territory (1H/2H)44% (46%/41%)19Clean breaks1237Defenders beaten1818Offloads14112 from 118 (94.9%)Rucks won74 from 80 (92.5%)1 from 2 (50.0%)Mauls won2 from 2 (100.0%)19Turnovers conceded15Defensive108/18Tackles made/missed149/3786.0%Tackling success rate80.0%



Game 2
Kick/pass/run29Kicks from hand2196Passes13369Runs137315Metres run with ball591Attacking36% (47%/25%)Possession (1H/2H)64% (53%/75%)34% (49%/20%)Territory (1H/2H)66% (51%/80%)6Clean breaks117Defenders beaten317Offloads1440 from 44 (90.9%)Rucks won101 from 105 (96.2%)0 from 1 (0.0%)Mauls won4 from 4 (100.0%)14Turnovers conceded14Defensive154/31Tackles made/missed75/783.0%Tackling success rate91.0%


Game 3
Kick/pass/run19Kicks from hand24177Passes129132Runs105561Metres run with ball405Attacking57% (58%/55%)Possession (1H/2H)43% (42%/45%)57% (59%/56%)Territory (1H/2H)43% (41%/44%)7Clean breaks1013Defenders beaten2012Offloads1583 from 88 (94.3%)Rucks won58 from 64 (90.6%)0 from 0Mauls won6 from 10 (60.0%)19Turnovers conceded22Defensive91/20Tackles made/missed128/1382.0%Tackling success rate91.0%

All 3 games from the land of the long white cloud, home to the positive rugby approach, two of which were local derbies.
Game 1 - Hurricanes (Team A) lost to Waratahs (Team B) 24-29Game 2 - Highlanders (Team A) beat Blues (Team B) 30-24Game 3 - Crusaders (Team A)  lost to Chiefs (Team B)  9-26

In all three cases, the team that ran more, kicked less and won both the territory and possession stats LOST. 
In two of the games, the team with the worse tackle completion rate WON.
The Bulls ran the ball significantly more often in their game than both the New Zealand teams that won their games.

Careful...you are challenging the given wisdom.

Just to add to the "confusion", the Bulls have now scored more points than any other side in this years competition. 

oimatey
Statistics do not win matches - scoring of tries and converting goal kicks do.  It has happened often enough - even in recent tests between the AB's and the Springboks - that the Springboks won both the possession and territory stakes, but lost the games.
For example - the secret does not lie in whether a player kick the balls - it lies in the value of the kicks made.  Strategic and accurate kicking is an asset - aimless and inaccurate kicks is a match-loser.   Far too often the latter means loss of possession and territory of scoring of tries as a result of counter-attacks.
Fact is also that there are other factors at play in virtually all stats.   For instance take the position insofar as ball possession losses are concerned.   Most losses do not necessarily result in points being scored - it is what happens after the losses that counts.
One can go on and write books about stats - and the impact of stats in games.  The best usage of stats is when it serve as an indicator of tendencies in individual player performances.   It really is only a reasonable indicator if there is a continuous evaluation of player performances over a substantial number of matches.   If for instance a player has a bad tackle ratio over a series of matches as a whole - question marks over his tackling abilities and technique become a consideration.  If a player lose ball possession through knock-ons the issue of ball handling abilities becomes pertinent.  If there is constant ball losses because of inaccurate kicking, the kicking technique of a kicker should be dealt with.
In the main the winning teams in matches do not put all their eggs in one basket. They have a serious variation ability and depends more on accurate reading of the game and consequential decision-making.  If key players like the flyhalfs have a deficiency in the latter regard - chances are that possession would be wasted and matches lost.       
There are so many variables in rugby as a team sport - the issue of overall match stats is only part of the issues reflecting match results and often enough even a minor part.   That is why I am so hesitant to use stats and only use them for individual performance evaluation over a series of games and not in individual games - the latter only when a tendency has been confirmed and the player continues in his merry ways during that individual game.         

You shouldn't be so dismissive of game stats as there is a lot of valuable information in there. The Chiefs are stat rats by all accounts and it has served them well. The type of stats posted above are the best tool we have to measure the type of game plan a team uses and that was the point of the post. It is further confirmation of the article posted recently in the "Winning Formula" post about the reasons for the Stormers success in particular games. When they use a certain type of game plan that fits their personnel, they win.
Of course stats cannot measure how good a tackle or a particular kick is, but those anomalies become less and less of a concern as you gather more data from different games, different teams and the same trends continue to emerge. Coaches would be ignoring them at their peril
What is abundantly clear is that success on the field is tied less to what game plan a team chooses to employ, but instead what their level of efficiency is in employing it. It is assumed that the coach will choose to use a game plan that best fits his players talents in order to achieve the highest level of efficiency. It is also clear that the strengths of our SA players dictates a certain type of game plan, and it is not one that places the priority on ball in hand, which is not to say we never use ball in hand but it has to be at the right time and place and should never be at the expense of our defensive structures.

 I agree with you about the trends issue and you also touched on a cardinal point - the level of execution.   Where I do differ from you is on the issue of the game plan  and in particular to have a game plan devoid of variation.   A game plan can become easily read and countered by the opposition - but variation will always be a problem for opposing teams to counter.  
The NZ teams have a game plan of keeping ball in hand and most teams have learned how to counter it - but their main advantage is their key players can read games and know when to apply different strategies that catch the opposition off guard.   In our case the game plan is applied in a way that does not allow for variation and it normally cost the team dearly because of predictability.
The problem with SA teams is that because of deficient coaching and in some cases just lack of ball skills - if the circumstances require variations they fail to show the skills of schoolboys and the game becomes a shambles.