The IRB price possesion is the RWC. One needs to be bigger and needs to make bigger $$$ than the other.
That is why the IRB have rule changes every time before and just before a RWC.
Two law tweaks totally favoring just two teams in World Rugby was made. Everyone suddenly had two years to adapt to those countries style of play. A style which they have been using and perfected for over 60 years. They had no chance.
Those two countries btw had problems with filling stadiums. Ways they would fill it is with playing entertaining rugby and to do it with less kicking.
So first the ball was revamped
Stats are a closely-guarded secret but I can reveal that the Xact ball had a 7396 goalkicking success rate, compared to 7496 for the Synergie in 2007. Well, you know what they say about small margins. Kick stats aren't down to the ball alone, of course, but Grayson believes even a layman could tell the difference between the Virtuo and the Xact that Wilkinson popped over in the last minute in Sydney.
Then the kicking laws were tweaked
Tri nations 2004
In Tri Nations 2004, South Africa
• obtained far less possession than the other two teams
• created noticeably fewer rucks and mauls
• made significantly fewer passes and
• had a rate of rucking and passing that was markedly less than the other two countries.
These differences were not marginal
• New Zealand had 40% more possession than South Africa and Australia 11% more
• both Australia and New Zealand made 50% more passes
• New Zealand created almost double the rucks and mauls while Australia made 40% more.
In addition to this, South Africa were, by a long way, the most heavily penalized team in the tournament.
What South Africa did, however, was defend – and what was noticeable – they kicked more. They not only made far more kicks than New Zealand and Australia in open play but they used the kicking option at a far greater rate. Unlike the other two countries, they also attempted almost every kickable penalty.
But what they managed to do better than either of the other two teams was convert their restricted possession into tries. They used fewer rucks and passes to do so but in the end managed 13 tries compared to Australia’s 9 and New Zealand’s 4. Their effectiveness in converting possession into points is best illustrated by the following:
South Africa scored 1 try for every 4.5 minutes possession
Australia scored 1 try for every 7.2 minutes possession
New Zealand scored 1 try for every 20.6 minutes possession
Tri Ntions 2009
Over recent years, the South African senior team has developed a clearly identified but
highly effective and successful playing strategy. It involves, in broad terms, exerting
territorial pressure on its opponents through tactical kicking combined with intense
physical pressure while minimising risk and effectively converting opponents errors into
points - Possession is not a priority.
This means that an analysis of South Africa’s matches invariably fall into a clearly
identifiable profile
¨ they obtain less possession than their opponents.
¨ as a result, they make fewer rucks
¨ and make fewer passes than their opponents
¨ but make more kicks because of the importance attached to territorial advantage
This approach is then enhanced by a highly competent scrum and a hugely
successful lineout.
2010
If the ball is not being kicked into the air then other actions are taking place, and so it was in Tri
Nations 2010. The number of rucks and passes increased, and increased substantially.
Rucks and mauls went up by over 40% - from 131 per game to 186.
Passes went up by 35% - from 222 per game to 300. (the lowest passing game in 2010 was
not much less than the highest passing game in 2009
Then 2010
New Zealand scored 8 tries from opposition kicks. Australia and South Africa scored 1
between them
· South Africa conceded 6 tries from their own kicks, New Zealand conceded 1 and
Australia 2
This is what laws do to your game.
NZ always scored most tries from kick returns. So its not them adapting it was the laws adapting to their style.
But because SA style was wining over the Kiwi style does that mean to try and get rid of the boring style with law tweaks.
Yes South Africa and England and some of the other NH teams do play boring kicking it down there and live of errors style but there is a reason why we play like that.
In essence, New Zealand’s Exit Zone philosophy is to set a platform in midfield then decide to kick or run. If they decide to kick they’ll kick to isolate the opposing full back with contestable kicks.
Around 14 minutes into New Zealand’s opening World Cup game v Tonga, the All Blacks were awarded a scrum on the left side of the pitch just inside their own 22m line.
They ran a drop bomb play. Another reason New Zealand prefer to play phases before launching their kick and chase is
because they want to take the energy out of the opposition before they give them the ball.
If you have a fit, mobile team this is an excellent tactic when you encounter a big, physical side.
You can use your Exit Zone possession to run your bigger opponents around and drain their energy reserves.
The next time you see New Zealand play South Africa watch for them to use this tactic.
So take away one side ability who kick from set play away to kick it out, tweak the laws so there is more rucks and phases with less kicks and you have created a game to suite the few and suite a certain build of big mobile players. We aren't allowed to play to our strengths anymore so is most of the sides in the rugby world. Only one is
No wonder one team is dominating more than ever.
So you do not have to fix anything in rugby. You just tweak laws to make yourself bigger profits
