Kicks in play tracker

Here is a simple tracker for kicks in play, it's aggregated and the number of games played is indicated: . Crusaders.......71/3 . Chiefs.............69/3 . Canes.............79/3 . Highlanders....94/3 . . NZ sample.....313/3 . . . Stormers........56/3 . Sharks...........76/3 . Lions..............60/3 . Cheetahs.......54/3 . . SA sample.....246/3

Is there a metric for kicking from the first phase, vs. 2nd phase:
The New Zealand teams will often carry it up on the first phase to pull in the defence, to create some space to kick into. 
Our teams have often kicked from 1st phase where the back three of the opposition can easily field and counter attack.
Although, our teams have been playing smarter this year.

That would be helpful, but I can't find it in the match stats.....so unless you have a better source, I'm afraid we are stuck with a somewhat blunt instrument.

Shark raised a good point...maybe that's obvious... don't know if there is stats for this but the NZ'ers don't often kick on first phase...they kick with a purpose and a plan in hand and mostly from 2nd or even 3rd phase...not aimlessly. Kicks on their own down win the argument...it's the reasons and purposes that count.

 Actually I think pretty much everybody plays with an 'exit plan' these days, which involves several phases. Whether those few moves accomplish anything but improve the kicking angle is debatable.

Seb is 100% correct here.
It is not the number of kicks made by teams, but the quality of the kicks that impacts on match performance.
Nobody ever argue about the role of kicking in rugby - what annoys everybody is aimless and inaccurate kicking.  
NZ teams has refined their kicking to allow for -
*  in the case of long kicks to catch recipients  out of position to allow for follow-up and to prevent counter-attacks;
*  they virtually never kick the ball out so near to the sideline that quick throw-ins is possible;
*  in general their kicking is on the button and follow-up effective.
The problem with SA players is that they kick poorly (inaccurately and aimlessly ) and the opposition use the poor kicks to counter-attack.   That has given kicking in rugby games a bad name and the players will have to be careful not to avoid kicking at all costs - it is too important in games as a variant and is a key attacking weapon if executed properly.      

Mostly balls.

Mozart
The issue is as per normal not understood by Mozart - the great admirer of the Steyns - the epitomes of inaccurate and aimless kicking.   Their kicking game has been described  as the exact opposite of what kicking as both an attacking and defensive measure should entail.  
For Mozart kicking is not a variant in play - it is a rugby religion that is to be used as a constant.   Very poor knowledge of the game is what is expected from him in this case.   What an idiot we have  here.              

Totally balls. To assume Beauden Barrett is a better kicker of the ball, with more tactical nous than Morne Steyn, Lambie or even Jantjies is nonsense. Nor do any of the NZ scrummies get anywhere near du Preez or even Pienaar for tactical kicking. This is a standard excuse to obviate the fact that NZ kicks the ball as much or more than their opponents. No not all their kicks are well contested, no not all their line kicks negate the quick throw, no not all of their long kicks go into space. NZ rarely wastes good ball, they have no hesitation to kick bad ball....and they kick about the same as everybody else.

 Great balls of fire - this lunatic is putting Barrett and Morne Steyn in the same sentence.  No commentator has ever described Barrett's kicking game as BS like happened in a test in which Steyn played.   No crowd has ever boo-ed Barrett for making aimless kicks. 
Are you strangely demented or just pretending to be.   There is no more non-thinking kicking than is the case with Morne Steyn.   He kicks before he thinks.   And e is totally inaccurate - remember the Perth penalty kick which cost the Springboks the test.  He cannot even kick a penalty line kick accurately and even Meyer realized that.   He never started Morne in a test after that fiasco/
Morne was a penalty conversion specialist - a club kicker does better than him in out-of-hand kicking.    
Janjies is a poor kicker - he routinely leaves kicking to the full back or another kicker because he does not have the accuracy in kicking.
Lambie is about twice as effective as a out-of-hand kicker as Morne Steyn.  At least he always has an objective in what he wants to achieve bef ore kicking.    
Mozart do you understand rugby at all and are you writing the BS on this site because you are so rugby ignorant.           

Tokkie stop being a bore. Winning Chiefs 34 kicks in play.....losing Hurricanes 26 kicks in play. After two rounds the team that kicked the most won as often as the team that kicked the least.

 Mozart
Did you watch the game?  

So far in the 6 nations .....8 wins by the team kicking most........2 wins by the team kicking least.

 Mozart
Why not answer my question about watching the game?   Your statement is simplistic and absolute crap.  
You started off with the Hurricanes - Chiefs game and according to you the reason why the Chiefs won the game was because they kicked the ball more.   There were in fact a major number of issues involved and the kicking was by far not the reason for the victory,  
The totally unscientific and unrealistic crap about rugby you write on this site is what is really boring.        

Just gathering data Tokkie......no need for all this hysterical stuff. Nothing I reported is anything but a simple fact.

 So you did not watch the game and commented on it.  There is no simple data indicating that the Chiefs won the game because they kicked more.   That is really the pits and one should realize that it is not worth commenting on the crap.  

I never commented on it.....I simply reported that the winning team kicked more times out of hand ....a data point . No need to soil your nappy.

 You implied that the kicking was the reason for the Chiefs winning by your comments.
It was as silly as when you tried to compare Morne Steyn with Daniel Carter as flyhalfs and said that they were on par.   Now it is Smith and Pernara who are worse kickers than Pienaar and Du Preez.   Silly stuff those kind of statement by a rugby ignorant.  

Never implied anything......reported the facts. Your rampant emotions affect your ability to read English. And stop polluting this string...nobody is interested in your rants.

Updated.... 3 teams kicking least in our sample are SA franchizes after 3 rounds. In the 6 Nations.....10 of 12 games have been won by the team that kicked most out of hand.

 Does the kicking or nt kicking decide the matches outcomes?   Does it take into account the playing conditions that necessitate kicking more often?
The chap has a mania about aging sportsmen - now he also develops about kicking in games.   This started with him claiming that Morne as a flyhalf was on par with Carter and one wonders to what depth of rugby non-knowledge will ultimately drive him.

 Just numbers Tokkie you might as well howl at the moon.

 Mozart
Numbers without background is absolutely useless and misleading.   Why kicking, why not do the same with line breaks, defenders beaten, tries scored, etc?
Problem is your mania about kicking is what makes the use of numbers so ridiculous - you regard kicking as 90% of the functions of a flyhalf - and stated that in the past.  I regard kicking as n essential component in par with other components and the need for variation of play is paramount.
S o the whole thread is an exercise in silliness and misleading because it lacks content.      

 Mozart
Numbers without background is absolutely useless and misleading.   Why kicking, why not do the same with line breaks, defenders beaten, tries scored, etc?
Problem is your mania about kicking is what makes the use of numbers so ridiculous - you regard kicking as 90% of the functions of a flyhalf - and stated that in the past.  I regard kicking as n essential component in par with other components and the need for variation of play is paramount.
S o the whole thread is an exercise in silliness and misleading because it lacks content.      

 Just numbers Tokkie examining the assertion that we kick more than NZ teams and that's the cause of our downfall. I don't comment on any of that in this string.....I just provide the numbers. Is it upsetting you?

 No numbers don't upset me.   In a thread elsewhere I said clearly that NZ kick balls more often than SA teams - but the difference is their kicking is based on an attacking and defending strategy, while the SA side kicks poorly and their kicks are misdirected.  
The most important issue is not kicking - but the quality of the kicking - which the numbers only does not reflect.
So kicking numbers on its own is totally meaningless.

Getik in die bal!

 BS in capital letters.