"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital". That is a term coined by Professor Aaron Levenstein only for it to be abused by sports fans ever since.
These same sports fans would have been at it stronger than ever this week if they had even just a casual glance at the match statistics from Saturday’s Super Rugby grudge-derby between the Sharks and the Bulls.
The stats seem to tell a story of Sharks dominance in all those aspects of the game that the general fan will regard as the building blocks of any victory.
The Sharks had territorial advantage, had the most carries for the most run metres and kicked away possession far fewer times. The Sharks had a better tackle percentage, a better quick-recycle percentage and had statistical superiority in both scrums and lineouts.
The Sharks also lost the game 40-10, by some distance their biggest Super Rugby loss at home against South African opposition.
“Lies, damn lies and statistics,” I hear you say. “The match statistician is clearly the same guy who used to stick those pesky stars on the prettier parts of Scope magazine’s centrefolds!”
Ok, fair enough, but calm down a little. This is the SuperWrap, and here we won’t allow a bit of swimwear to stand between you and the truth. The thing is, we know that if stats are like a bikini, then it is not always fastened properly. And we intend to give the loose end of it a good yank.
Statistics are nothing more than mere numbers, and in no way can they deceive anyone on purpose. Instead it is the context within which data points are interpreted that tends to obfuscate matters.
Saturday was no different. All the statistics mentioned in the Sharks’ favour earlier are accurate as per our official source, except that in the context of the match those specific ones didn’t matter.
Let’s therefore turn our attention to the numbers that did actually influence the result and give them a blank canvass to paint a work named “The anatomy of a significant derby upset”.
AVOIDING TACKLES
For starters, consider this: the Bulls edged the possession in the match (51%) and spent a bigger part of the available 80 minutes on attack than on defence (15 and 14mins respectively). Despite this they had to make 140 tackles while the Sharks only needed 76.
Sounds weird, right? Probably because it is, at least to the South African eye.
That set of digits tells us that Saturday’s clash was one of vastly different approaches. The Sharks clearly looked for contact when they had ball in hand while the Bulls, in turn, looked to avoid it as best they could.
Sharks runners crashed the ball up to the gainline a whopping 71% of the time, giving the inside defensive channels a pounding. Their most prolific ball carriers were loose-forwards Jean-Luc du Preez and Phillip van der Walt and prop Juan Schoeman.
The Bulls were far more keen to attack the wider channels with centre Burger Odendaal and wing Johnny Kotze topping their list in terms of ball carries. They also often preferred to get the ball over the defensive line with little chips and grubbers instead of through it by force. Warrick Gelant’s hat-trick was a direct result of this tactic.
The Bulls kicked a lot (35 kicks out of hand compared to the Sharks’ 23), yet the Sharks were the ones that ended with a slight overall territorial advantage. Again weird, but not inexplicable. Especially if you consider that the Bulls chose to exit their 22 by running it out almost every second time they received the ball there.
The Bulls kicked, but they weren’t merely looking to get the ball as far down the field as they could. Every time the ball touched a Bulls boot it was sent flying with a positive net result in mind, and generally it was accurate enough to ensure that favourable outcome.
What is a tactical kick? That question is best answered by Uli’s Schmidt’s dad, the late Oom Louis, who is rumoured to have once said: “A tactical kick is any kick that is not a s#!t kick”. The stats show that on Saturday the Bulls kicked the way that the Oom always wanted his teams to.
It is clear that the Bulls played away from the Sharks’ strengths, something that frustrated the home side no end, especially once the scoreboard started running away from them.
LOCK'S CAP IS ON
The stats go further than just revealing the tactics, though. They also show the immense work put in by some of the players. Here it is the Bulls’ two locks who stand head and shoulders above the rest.
Lood de Jager, for example, made a mind-blowing 23 tackles - 10 more than anyone else managed on the day. Four of those were marked as being dominant, again double the amount of the next best.
And if he wasn’t tackling he was being a menace in other ways, leading the Bulls’ count for being among the first three arrivals at opposition rucks. This has to be added to the constant threat he posed to the gainline as well as the unexpected charge-down that lead to the first try of the match.
In RG Snyman he found a willing partner. Snyman was vital to the Bulls’ imposing ball retention rate, arriving to an astounding, match-high, 24 attacking rucks on time. On six of those occasions he was also able to perform a proper cleanout.
It is the type of work-rate coaches can only dream of. If you have your two biggest players so effectively involved at almost all the contact points, you are bound to almost always have a platform to launch from. You also free up your loose-forwards to be proper terrors elsewhere on the field, something Roelof Smit and the impressive new kid on the block, Marco van Staden, did with aplomb.
If De Jager and Snyman can repeat this a couple more times it will become very tough to argue against them starting for the Springboks as a pair in June.
But let’s get back to the point…
Statistics can never reveal everything that happens in a match - and we agree that in many cases it is overrated, especially when presented in isolation and without context. But in this case the numbers did actually tell a story.
The numbers told the story of a home side that expected – and prepared solely for – a tight arm-wrestle. And then of a new up-and-coming visiting team that looked for - and successfully made use of - any space that became vacant in front of their eyes, and without ever neglecting the more physical aspects of the game.
The numbers tell us that there is more than one way to win in rugby, and that finally more than just one South African team has woken up to that fact.
The numbers, as they say in the classics, are encouraging.
