Why the ball in hand bemefitte the Stormers in the Second half

I was baffled by a comment made by Mozart on the issue of second half ball-in-hand as follows:-
"Now the summary. Ball in hand produced nothing in the second half....zero, nada, niks. In fact most of the Chiefs attacks including the Louw try came from sterile phase play being turned over."
I thought what happened was extremely important and really won the game for the Stormers.   They kept the ball for long periods meaning that the Chiefs could not play without the ball.  The Lowe try came from a turnover when Leyds got isolated and there was one penalty as well for the Stormers.  
In the first half there were two poor kicks in the game leading to tries by the Chiefs.   Let me be explicit  I have no problem with kicks in games - they can be very effective - but they also have the danger of too many ball possession handovers to the opposition - with seriously detrimental effects.  
In the second half the Stormers kicked the ball nine times.  Three of those kicks occurred when the match was basically over - ie minutes 78, 79 and 80.   Of the other six at least three was very effective and put the Chiefs on the back foot.   The other three was not without pressure on the recipient - other than the case was in the first half.
The idea that holding ball possession is sterile is to my mind ridiculous.   By keeping the ball in hand can never be sterile - since it prevents the opposition from getting the ball to play with.   In the case of kicking the ball the chances are 50:50 that there would be a possession turnover and that can be fatal - especially if the kicks are too far  ahead and follow-up results in a totally defective defensive line.  
My contention is that the sterile play Mozart referred to in fact won the game for the Stormers  as it kept the Chiefs under serious pressure most of the time.  Constant defending is energy sapping and that also has a detrimental effect on the whole game as became evident during the second half on Saturday.  
Remember - rugby requires that a team has to have balls to play with.  If not their chances of winning are near to zero - even when the ball possessing team cannot score tries in the process. 
In all cases their should be a balanced game plan with 80% keeping ball possession at all time possible and 20% strategic, clever and accurate kicking.   The latter is to be used as an alternative and should at all time not be predictable.                


.

Yes, they benefited by scoring only 10 points and one try in the second half against 24 points and three tries in the first half. They also won the first half by a larger margin than they did the second.
This is all a bunch of pointless nonsense, and you're wasting so much time regurgitating it. It's too funny.

Ou Tokkie chasing his tail again.

 The way the Stormers played they allowed the Chiefs not to score extra tries.  Are you two Mongs too stupid to realize that.   How dumb can you get? 
The majority of points on both sides were scored by the Chiefs in the first half - two converted tries from sh!t kicks as clearly pointed out.  Those kicks were not repeated in the second half and that showed that the Chiefs did not get enough balls to play their own attacking game. 
Hell - I know that you two Mongs are rugby illiterate - but how stupid you really are is beyond belief.   What muck will you come up with next, stooges?     

The majority of points on both sides were scored by the Chiefs in the first half
Uhm, the Stormers led 24-18 at half time having scored 3 tries to 2. 

 The Chiefs scored to give away tries because of BS kicking - the fact that less points were scored in the second half was due to the tightening up of the game by the Stormers and not handing over of balls to the Chiefs as easily as happened in the first half.
If the Stormers made some more Sh!t kicks in the second half they would have lost the game - end of story.  Every commentator agrees with that - the Stormer were told not to kick the balls in the same manner they did in the first half by the coaching staff  - yet the Mons knows better than anybody else.   Who would people generally believe -  the site Mongs or the coaching staff and the commentators?  
It will be wise if you stop the crap and accept that you and the other Mongs are clueless in the relevant regard.        

 That one game win is everything apparently.

 Variation is King. By playing ball in hand, you create space at the back to kick into. Draw in defence and kick into space. Then after having done this successfully for a bit, the defending team sends more defenders to the back, to cover those kicks, leaving the attacking team with less defenders to deal with close to the action. Simple rugby principles discarded by SA teams for too long. Keep the opposition guessing.

So, we've heard that the so-called "ball in hand" second half of the Stormers won them the game. 
Here is another interesting data point though: rucks. The images below (from The NZ Herald Stats Centre) are, in order:
Stormers rucks won first halfStormers rucks won second half Chiefs rucks won second half


As we can see, the Stormers had a lot more rucks in the Chiefs red zone in the first half, and all three their tries came either directly or indirectly (Du Preez's from a set scrum forced by ruck pressure) from their red zone dominance in the first half.
In the second half, no such thing. Most ruck possession now shifted to the Stormers 22 and halfway area, with very little ruck possession in the Chiefs red zone.
In contrast, the Chiefs absolutely dominated attacking ruck position in the second half - look at that black mass of rucks won in the Stormers 22. Still, they only managed one try. 
Which takes us back to Mozart's original assessment: the Stormers line speed was crucial to shutting a territorially dominant Chiefs down in the second half, with Kolbe scoring two intercepts, one of which led to the Stormers only try. All this stuff about the kicking game based on two freak tries by the Chiefs had little to do with it. If anything, we can see the Stormers having a much harder time gaining territory in the second half.

That's why you need a flyhalf with vision and the ability to make decisions. We have played balanced rugby in the past....the trouble is our running rugby usually comes with a nutty adherence to not kicking ever....remember the early matches of Harry Viljoen.

 Fair point...the balance thing...variation...

 We have played balanced rugby in the past?????
What do you mean?   It was not very obvious over the last nine years.   Our backline constantly malfunctioned and kicking (mainly aimless and inaccurate) was King - is that what you mean with balanced rugby?
 There may have been a few matches where there were more evidence of ball in hand rugby against weaker teams - but not much was in evidence.   Our halfbacks were mostly kickers and if their was indeed passing one of the loosies was more frequently first receiver than the flyhalf - eg in the 2015 WC.
My interpretation was there was NO balanced rugby at all with kicking being the only real game played.   My memory might have failed me - but we with one exception since 2010 lost all games against the AB's playing utterly predictable and one -dimensional rugby.   I would never call that balanced rugby.  
There are obviously a need for kicking in games - but kicking should be a variation  and not over-used like a constant as in the past.  

 Mike, the past is a long time....it's like everything that happened before the peesent...EVERYTHING.

Wow Pakie, you are taking discussion to a whole new level! Not sure the rest of us can keep up. Well done!!
You will notice wee cc has disappeared, Beeno may be temporarily back (until the next stormers match & then it's behind the coach time again ). And me... I may have to start thinking before I post

 Yes, the graphs and the stats were impressive and having a look at that while watching the match again would be interesting...if I could find the time...one of the better matches to have a second look at this year. Pen and paper in hand apposed to biltong and beer...a bit more reserved, but it might be just as rewarding but in a different way.

Very insightful Pakie....when the data backs up one's intuition it raises the confidence level. The stuff Mallett produced by contrast was pure conjecture and turned out to be inaccurate. My beef with South African rugby has always been it is so governed by emotion instead of clear headed thinking......we build up this huge narrative, everybody buys in and then, oops, we play NZ and the whole thing implodes. We need to really understand what works for us. . Thanks Pakie, great post.

 The real reason issue of rucks and where it occurred had zero to do with the kicking game under discussion.   This is a totally different scenario.   However, taking what Pakie posted above indicates to me that suicidal kicking - like happened twice in the first half - would have lost the game for the Stormers.
Wherever the rucks was is not really material in this instance - the whole argument  was that the Stormers made sure the Chiefs did not get cheap handovers of possession through suicidal and poor kicks.   That was avoided by keeping the ball in hand and making rare kicks in the second half.    when kicks were made it was basically very affective and not the BS that cost the Stormers two tries in the first half. 
Despite the grafts above - the Chiefs attained 8 points in the second half against the Stormers 10 points.   That certainly showed that despite the position where breakdowns occur - the Stormers not making BS kicks save the day for them.   In any event breakdowns often are repeatedly made after kick-ins and that would always be in the area near the 22.   By playing ball in hand the same would occur - so that is no real argument about the issue.  
Pakie - you certainly are welcome to discuss breakdown ball protection and recovery - but it has no r eal bearing on the topic discussed above.          

As expected, he didn't get any of it.

 I got it exactly Mong and know what you are on about - as per normal trying to divert discussions on the topic.   The fact is that aimless and inaccurate kicks were what was discussed and you apparently are all for kicking as  a means for handing over ball possession.    Way over your head I am afraid. .  

 I got it exactly Mong and know what you are on about - as per normal trying to divert discussions on the topic.   The fact is that aimless and inaccurate kicks were what was discussed and you apparently are all for kicking as  a means for handing over ball possession.    Way over your head I am afraid. .  

Wooosh