Statistic of the Day

[Puja]

Out of the top 10 scores so far at the 2019 edition of the RWC, the top 7 have all come from Pool B, featuring the same 4 teams: NZ, South Africa, Italy, Canada and Namibia.

NZ 71 v. Namibia
SA 66 v. Canada
NZ 63 v. Canada
SA 57 v. Namibia
SA 49 v. Italy
Italy 48 v. Canada
Italy 47 v. Namibia

The next 3 highest scores are all 8th equal, at 45 points each (England's 45 points against the USA, Fiji's 45 against Georgia and Australia's 45 against Uruguay).

Japan has the highest score in Pool A, when they put 38 points on Samoa.

Adds extra weight to the idea of expansion to 24 teams in 2023. Not a single 100 score since 2007, only two scores over 65 in the last two tournaments - while no-one suggests the likes of Kenya, Hong Kong, Brazil, and Spain would be in any danger of winning a game, they wouldn't disgrace themselves any more than Canada have and it's be invaluable prestige for the development of the game in those countries. Not to mention that we could go to 6 pools of 4 with a second round and end the 3 day turnarounds that blight the current pool stages.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Adds extra weight to the idea of expansion to 24 teams in 2023. Not a single 100 score since 2007, only two scores over 65 in the last two tournaments - while no-one suggests the likes of Kenya, Hong Kong, Brazil, and Spain would be in any danger of winning a game, they wouldn't disgrace themselves any more than Canada have and it's be invaluable prestige for the development of the game in those countries. Not to mention that we could go to 6 pools of 4 with a second round and end the 3 day turnarounds that blight the current pool stages.

[Lizard]

There have been six 100+ scores in RWCs. Only one of them has been scored by the eventual champion.

1995: NZ 145 v Japan 17
1999: NZ 101 v Italy 3; Eng 101 v Tonga 10
2003: Eng 111 v Uruguay 13
2007: NZ 108 v Portugal 13

Your list is missing the 142-0 for Aus against Namibia in 2003

True. Good pick up.

[Lizard]

I don’t think we’re ready for 24 teams. I believe the lack of 100+ scores is more to do with the approach taken by the Tier 1 sides than a tangible improvement from the minnows. The Big Boys simply don’t go hard out, with the full bells & whistles game plan, for 80 minutes any more.

Also, realistically, if you want anything close to the next best 4 teams at least 3 of them will need to be European, which seems against the spirit of the thing. The next best African side is not even in the top 30 (remembering that Namibia are 0 wins from 22 at RWCs). A bunch of ex-pat amateurs from Hong Kong would hardly help appearances.

I reckon it is more important to focus on creating a more level playing field for Tier 2 in terms of number and quality of tests over 4 years, before getting more Tier 3 cannon fodder in.

[Puja]

I don’t think we’re ready for 24 teams. I believe the lack of 100+ scores is more to do with the approach taken by the Tier 1 sides than a tangible improvement from the minnows. The Big Boys simply don’t go hard out, with the full bells & whistles game plan, for 80 minutes any more.

Also, realistically, if you want anything close to the next best 4 teams at least 3 of them will need to be European, which seems against the spirit of the thing. The next best African side is not even in the top 30 (remembering that Namibia are 0 wins from 22 at RWCs). A bunch of ex-pat amateurs from Hong Kong would hardly help appearances.

I reckon it is more important to focus on creating a more level playing field for Tier 2 in terms of number and quality of tests over 4 years, before getting more Tier 3 cannon fodder in.

The issue is that the Tier 3 teams can't improve without the RWC. Sponsors aren't interested if they're not qualified and at present, it takes something extraordinary like the European eligibility debacle for a new team to break the 20. Give them a realistic chance to qualify and, like Germany did, they'll suddenly find money for coaches and training camps and leap up in quality. I take your point that most of the next-best teams are in Europe, but two of the new teams would likely be Europe (1 automatic, 1 through the repechage), so we'd be finding three non-European teams - Canada, Kenya, Hong Kong. And while a lot of the Hong Kong team aren't born and bred, having them there would give the game an incredible boost, both in Hong Kong and in China and would mean that in 10 years time, they might be all born and bred.

Add in to that that a 24 team RWC means greater opportunity for smaller sides. 6 pools of 4 means top 2 and the 2 best 3rd places go through to a second round, which means the likes of Georgia, USA, and Scotland have much more realistic chances of making their world cup about more than just "Turned up, did okay, went out" which will help sponsorship and money as well.

You're not wrong about having a more level playing field for Tier 2 and more tests, but that's a separate issue.

Puja

[Lizard]

I’m not sure I agree that access to the RWC makes teams better. It hasn’t been the case for Canada - they’ve got worse. Romania have been to every tournament but 2019 and aren’t noticeably climbing the ranks in Europe.

I also don’t see how reducing the number of pool games from 4 to 3 helps the lower teams. What is your playoff model? I think there would be serious issues with taking the best of the third places because there is no way that 6 pools of four could even remotely be balanced.

[Puja]

I’m not sure I agree that access to the RWC makes teams better. It hasn’t been the case for Canada - they’ve got worse. Romania have been to every tournament but 2019 and aren’t noticeably climbing the ranks in Europe.

I also don’t see how reducing the number of pool games from 4 to 3 helps the lower teams. What is your playoff model? I think there would be serious issues with taking the best of the third places because there is no way that 6 pools of four could even remotely be balanced.

It makes teams more sponsorship and more money, so there will be a boost on entry, rather than a boost on the 10th attendance at a tournament. And, rubbish as Canada are, there is always worse - they estimated that missing out on the RWC would halve their budget for the next four years. Plus Canada could be given a billion pounds and still find a way to squander it. I'd say a more pertinent example is Uruguay who have built a good system with the money that the RWC had brought into them.

You have a good point about reducing the pool games from 4 to 3 - Namibia may be 0 from 22, but they stand a reasonable chance of 1 from 23 this week because they're in the same pool as Canada. However, the current pool schedule is a mess and there are significant advantages to having even numbers of teams in terms of fairness for T2 and T3 nations.

I don't think there would be serious issues with 2 3rd places qualifying - the pools aren't balanced as things stand and teams already get easier routes by luck of the draw.

Puja

[Stom]

I’m not sure I agree that access to the RWC makes teams better. It hasn’t been the case for Canada - they’ve got worse. Romania have been to every tournament but 2019 and aren’t noticeably climbing the ranks in Europe.

I also don’t see how reducing the number of pool games from 4 to 3 helps the lower teams. What is your playoff model? I think there would be serious issues with taking the best of the third places because there is no way that 6 pools of four could even remotely be balanced.

It makes teams more sponsorship and more money, so there will be a boost on entry, rather than a boost on the 10th attendance at a tournament. And, rubbish as Canada are, there is always worse - they estimated that missing out on the RWC would halve their budget for the next four years. Plus Canada could be given a billion pounds and still find a way to squander it. I'd say a more pertinent example is Uruguay who have built a good system with the money that the RWC had brought into them.

You have a good point about reducing the pool games from 4 to 3 - Namibia may be 0 from 22, but they stand a reasonable chance of 1 from 23 this week because they're in the same pool as Canada. However, the current pool schedule is a mess and there are significant advantages to having even numbers of teams in terms of fairness for T2 and T3 nations.

I don't think there would be serious issues with 2 3rd places qualifying - the pools aren't balanced as things stand and teams already get easier routes by luck of the draw.

Puja

I can see one...That'd be 14 teams. You mean 4 3rd places, surely. Which means a last 16 where you could see Australia vs Wales in one match and New Zealand vs Romania in another...

There is a giant drop in quality currently between the top 8 and the rest. 16 teams in a WC knock out means for some teams you're reducing their WC matches.

[Stom]

I’m not sure I agree that access to the RWC makes teams better. It hasn’t been the case for Canada - they’ve got worse. Romania have been to every tournament but 2019 and aren’t noticeably climbing the ranks in Europe.

I also don’t see how reducing the number of pool games from 4 to 3 helps the lower teams. What is your playoff model? I think there would be serious issues with taking the best of the third places because there is no way that 6 pools of four could even remotely be balanced.

TBF, it's kind of hard for them to climb in Europe.

For years it's been one of them Georgia or Russia at the top of the pile. Russia have fallen away recently, leaving Georgia and Romania to fight it out.

There's nowhere for them to go.

It's the same as with Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. 2 of them are consistently not good enough. And the other one sometimes shows up and sometimes doesn't.

They need more matches against better opposition and more funding.

Which means we cannot have this NZ centric "global calendar". We need to make Autumn Internationals a test championship, for me, played between WCs and featuring the top 24 teams.

We split them into 2 pools of 12, based on rankings (1, 3, 5, etc., 2, 4, 6, etc.). They then play 4 games every NH Autumn, bar one, when they play 3. That gives the likes of Georgia, Romania, Namibia, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, etc. meaningful games against the top teams.

[Puja]

I’m not sure I agree that access to the RWC makes teams better. It hasn’t been the case for Canada - they’ve got worse. Romania have been to every tournament but 2019 and aren’t noticeably climbing the ranks in Europe.

I also don’t see how reducing the number of pool games from 4 to 3 helps the lower teams. What is your playoff model? I think there would be serious issues with taking the best of the third places because there is no way that 6 pools of four could even remotely be balanced.

It makes teams more sponsorship and more money, so there will be a boost on entry, rather than a boost on the 10th attendance at a tournament. And, rubbish as Canada are, there is always worse - they estimated that missing out on the RWC would halve their budget for the next four years. Plus Canada could be given a billion pounds and still find a way to squander it. I'd say a more pertinent example is Uruguay who have built a good system with the money that the RWC had brought into them.

You have a good point about reducing the pool games from 4 to 3 - Namibia may be 0 from 22, but they stand a reasonable chance of 1 from 23 this week because they're in the same pool as Canada. However, the current pool schedule is a mess and there are significant advantages to having even numbers of teams in terms of fairness for T2 and T3 nations.

I don't think there would be serious issues with 2 3rd places qualifying - the pools aren't balanced as things stand and teams already get easier routes by luck of the draw.

Puja

I can see one...That'd be 14 teams. You mean 4 3rd places, surely. Which means a last 16 where you could see Australia vs Wales in one match and New Zealand vs Romania in another...

There is a giant drop in quality currently between the top 8 and the rest. 16 teams in a WC knock out means for some teams you're reducing their WC matches.

Well, okay - if you will come in here, flaunting your "simple maths".

Puja

[Lizard]

Anyway....

Back to the stats.

Wales v Fiji (oldest to most recent):
W W W W W W L D W W W

[Lizard]

First RWC Quarter FInal:
2019: Japan
2015: -
2011: -
2007: -
2003: -
1999: Argentina
1995: South Africa
1991: Canada, Samoa
1987: NZ, Aus, Eng, Wal, Sco, Fiji, Ire, Fra

[Lizard]

Right, so who would have picked the following to be the case at the end of Pool Play?

INDIVIDUAL RECORDS
Overall
Most points: Tamura (Jpn) 48 - well clear of equally surprising second place, Berchesi Pisano (Urug) – 30.
Most tries: Matsushima (Jpn) & Adams (Wal) – 5

From the teams that only played 3 matches
Most points: J Barrett (NZ) & Mo’unga (NZ) – 26*
Most tries: Cowan-Dickie (Eng) – 3*

For the All Blacks
Most points: J Barrett (NZ) & Mo’unga (NZ) – 26
Most tries: J Barrett, S Barrett, Lienert-Brown, Reece, B Smith, Weber – 2

And who would have guessed that Beauden would have the fewest points and fewest tries of all the Barretts in the tournament?

TEAM RECORDS
Overall
Most points: South Africa 185
Most tries: South Africa 27

From the teams that only played 3 matches
Most points: All Blacks 157**
Most tries: All Blacks 22**

*Worse than the overall record on a per match basis
**Better than the overall record on a per match basis

[Lizard]

Just copying this over from another thread, seeing as I've done the work.

There is serious trend of highly prolific All Blacks wingers suffering a precipitous decline in scoring rates in their late twenties.

I've looked at the numbers for every All Black ever with at least 12 tries playing on the wing (excluding Tana Umaga, who was really a centre despite his first 24 caps and 21 tries being on the wing). With one exception (Jeff Wilson, because he’s a bloody legend), the career of every retired played can be divided into prolific early years and poor later years:

Retired players

Stu Wilson: last test aged 29. Scored 15 tries in his first 24 tests (0.63/game) but only 4 in his last 10 (0.4).

John Kirwan: last test 29. 29 tries in first 38 tests (0.76), 6 in last 25 (0.24).

Terry Wright: last test 28. 13 tries in first 15 tests (0.87), 5 in last 15 (0.33).

Jeff Wilson: last test 27. The exception to the rule. His strike rate briefly dipped around the 20 cap mark, but recovered and did not noticeably decline at the end of his career. He scored 7 tries in 10 tests (0.70), 11 in 20 (0.55), 21 in 30 (0.70), 28 in 40 (0.70), 34 in 50 (0.68) and 44 in 60 (0.73). A remarkable career.

Jonah Lomu: last test 27. 28 tries in first 40 tests (0.70). 9 in last 23 (0.39)

Doug Howlett: last test 29. 41 tries in first 49 tests (0.84). 8 in last 13 (0.61) boosted by a hat-trick against a poor Italy at RWC2007.

Josevata Rokocoko: last test 27. 43 tries in first 47 tests (0.91). 3 in last 21 (0.14). This is probably the starkest example.

Sitiveni Sivivatu: last test 29. 27 tries in first 26 tests (1.04). 6 tries in last 22 (0.27)

Cory Jane: last test 31. 16 tries in first 41 tests (0.39). 2 in last 12 (0.17). Never really a strike winger as such.

Israel Dagg: last test 29. A bit of an unusual one. 10 tries in first 17 tests (0.59). 16 tries in last 49 tests (0.32).

Julian Savea: last test 26. 38 tries in first 39 tests (0.97). 7 in last 15 (0.47).

Waisake Naholo: last test 27. 14 tries in first 20 tests (0.70). 2 in last 6 (0.33).

Nehe Milner-Skudder: last test 27. Not a fair comparison as his career was ruined by injury, but you could say he scored 11 tries in his first 10 tests (1.10) and only 1 in last 3 (0.33).

Current players with 12+ tries on the wing

Ben Smith is aged 33. Not really a strike winger. His strike rate so far peaked at 0.57 after 23 tests, dipped to 0.39 after 49 tests, and since then has stayed between 0.40 and 0.48. He’s currently on 0.45 after 83 tests.

Reiko Ioane is only 22. His strike rate so far has peaked at 22 tries in 21 tests (1.05) but since then he has scored only 2 tries in 7 tests (0.29) but this includes one run off the bench and one at centre. Hopefully this is only a mid-career dip and not an early decline.

[Cameo]

Does this suggest you wait too long before dropping your wingers? Any chance you could do this for every retired winger in the world ever so we can see if this is a NZ thing? (Just joking).

Alternatively, do your wingers become more rounded and you use them slightly differently with a "strike" winger on the other side.

I have long thought that experience on the wing is sometimes too highly rated. Like strikers in football, a young fearless quick guy who think he can beat anyone is sometimes the ideal option until any weaknesses get worked out.

[Lizard]

Does this suggest you wait too long before dropping your wingers? Any chance you could do this for every retired winger in the world ever so we can see if this is a NZ thing? (Just joking).

Alternatively, do your wingers become more rounded and you use them slightly differently with a "strike" winger on the other side.

I have long thought that experience on the wing is sometimes too highly rated. Like strikers in football, a young fearless quick guy who think he can beat anyone is sometimes the ideal option until any weaknesses get worked out.

It's an interesting question and I think the answers differ depending on the circumstances. The first point is that these days, when 50 tests is a moderate career, you don't want to be too hasty in biffing out a player due to what is actually a temporary blip in form (e.g. Jeff Wilson after 20 tests) rather than a terminal decline. How long you give them to come right is the question - for instance, Reiko Ioane at 22 y.o. surely deserves another shot.

Then there's the type of player. Dagg and Jane, for instance, offered more than straight strike options so they still had value to offer while scoring at under 0.5 tries per test. Julian Savea, on the other hand, really only had one job. Then again, even a pure strike winger can be utilised as a decoy option - Lomu for instance was "figured out" fairly early on by the Springboks (against whom he never scored) but he could tie up 2 or 3 tacklers creating space elsewhere. Perhaps modern defence systems are not as prone to this though? (Or possibly Savea got lazy).

Another variable is whether a player chose to retire willingly, was pushed into it or straight-out dropped cold. This depends to a fair degree on the alternative players available at the time. All due respect to Inga Tuigamala and John Timu but no one really challenged John Kirwan until Lomu and Wilson came along, 9-10 years into his test career.

It is remarkable though, that none of the Next Big Things have overtaken Howlett's NZ try-scoring record that has stood since 2007.

For comparison, the major nation's try-scoring records were set as follows:

SA: 2016 Habana (67)
Ireland*: 2014 O'Driscoll (47)
Wales*: 2011 Shane Williams (60)
Argentina: 2008 Nunez Piossek (29)
NZ: 2007 Howlett (49)
Italy: 1999 Cuttitta (25)
Aust: 1996 Campese (64)
England*: 1996 Underwood (50)
France: 1991 Blanco (38)
Scotland: 1933 Smith (24) LOL

*Includes tries for the Lions

[Lizard]

Also, I would be able to do select wingers from other countries. Any requests?

How about Habana, Campo, Shane, Underwood, and North? (With the above, that would be all 5N & 3N players with 35+ tries on the wing)

[Mr Mwenda]

Aha, the Cueto effect.

[Cameo]

Also, I would be able to do select wingers from other countries. Any requests?

How about Habana, Campo, Shane, Underwood, and North? (With the above, that would be all 5N & 3N players with 35+ tries on the wing)

If you fancy a token Scot, I'd be interested in Seymour. I reckon he will match your theory as it wasn't that long ago I was expecting him to raise our embarrassingly low try scoring record. Now I'm relying on Hogg but he's slowed down too I think

[Cameo]

Savea is a strange one too. I get that you can be worked out but it should still be hard to stop someone if all they are working out is that he can either run round them or over them.

[Lizard]

I think there’s more to it than that. Like working out how you get the ball, what space you like, how you beat players - all that money ball stuff.

[Mellsblue]

Aha, the Cueto effect.

Ha. That’s the first thing I thought.

[Mellsblue]

Could it just be that you have such a successful conveyor belt that any dip leads to the chop before having the chance to get back to their mean? Those nations with less options, ie everyone else, don’t have the luxury of just picking the next wunderkid and have to ride through the barren patch. Look at England. We think we’re in rude health and all we really have is 2 from 3 in May, Nowell and Watson, and then we have some raw big bloke from Fiji and some raw elusive bloke from Scotland.

[Puja]

I was thinking about this and it happens everywhere. More pronounced in NZ, as their wingers are more likely to be acclaimed world class (given the number of scoring chances they are presented with), but it seems loads of wingers get off to a firey strike rate and then taper off. Seymour for Scotland's been mentioned, but there's Cueto and Ashton for England as well.

Odd counter-example is Jonny May, who started off not being able to buy a try (I still remember that one against Ireland where he had the ball knocked out of his hands a milimetre before grounding) and now is bringing his scoring average back up to something good.

Puja

[Cameo]

May is interesting because the way he plays (or maybe just looks), you would think he is the kind of player who would be found out and would struggle to adapt but he has turned himself into a top top winger.