6Nations vs Tri Nations - Just how different are they?

[Athilnaur]

Recently in this thread Paarlbok posted a link to Rugga Stats. I'd accessed the site before, but had a few issues with it. Primarily that it didn't attribute any scoring data (tries, penalties etc) to players. Hell, even teams.

Nevertheless what it DOES have is Six Nations data AND Tri Nations data...

Pretty topical atm, yeah?

So I ran some stats. Now I have to admit this was not fun to build given the missing scoring data, but I think it was worth it.

First some caveats:

1 - the 3N data is 2010. Thats the only decent data available until the 3N is over.
3 - There is (obviously) no way to index just how much tougher the 3N is over the 6N.

What this data does do is give us an idea of each 6N team's playstyle, their strengths and their weaknesses within the 6N... Similarly for us in the 3N, albeit on 2010 teams.

So here it is:

3N 2010 , 6N 2011 Team Analysis​

The first thing that stood out for me was the England Runs, Linebreak and Offload rates.

Playmaker passes and the OOA 1st 3 stats (cleanouts, counter rucking) were also telling.

Now the good news is obviously England won't hit those stats vs the Tri Nations teams, but that I reckon team profile is of a team that's willing to play rugby.

It would appear Mr Johnson has had an ongoing impact on their playstyle beyond a one off upset vs the Wallabies last year. Maybe those crazy poms are not so crazy after all



PS - If anyone can give me a decent explanation of Rugga Stats 'total forced, unforced errors' vs 'handling errors', when Rugga stats assert 'knock ons' as examples for both, as clearly neither is a subset of the other I'd appreciate it, PMs welcomed.

 

[Lee Grant]

Those stats look good for England but they were damn poor against Ireland. We obsess a bit about England because they play better against us than they do against other top rugby rugby nations - give or take - including beating us at home.

They are not a patch on the 2003 winning team but I'd warrant they'll be right up there in this RWC also - and who can forget how they kicked on after a poor start 4 years ago?

Those scrum reset figures look dodgy. NZ Rugby World (June 2011) reported that there was an average of 12 scrum collapses per game in 3N and the ball emerged first time only 56% of the time. Maybe the table don't include scrums that were ended with a FK or PK. I know they don't count lineouts that end up with a scrum, FK or PK before the lineout is over - they are non-events.

 

[Riptide]

England also get to play Scotland, Wales and Italy who are all relatively crap of late compared to their 3N competition.

 

[Larno]

I think the stats support the idea that Wales' attacking play is not great at the minute. Second lowest number of passes, tied for lowest number of linebreaks etc. The low possession percentage and the top number of tackles made also combined with the highest number of kicks for the most meters also confirm my suspiscions that they were booting away most of their ball this year well.

Mind you the numbers don't make Ireland look great in attack either, lowest gainline made tied with Italy. Also, is that turnovers for or against? That's either very positive or a big worry for my lot.

I think points for are the stats relating to points for and against are most telling of all. 3N sides score more points and concede more points than most 6N sides suggesting that their attack is much more developed. They miss more tackles, but I believe that is again due to attack being that much better and not due to defence being poor (the usual '3N = touch rugby' bullshit that the NH rugby media trots out).

It will be interesting to see what the numbers will be like at the end of this year's 3N and RWC.

 

[Scotty]

The stats are also going to differ greatly due to weather conditions. Sa and aus matches are hardly ever affected by rain so there is likely to be more attack and tries in the 3n

 

[Athilnaur]

Larno, the turnover is a defensive tackle stat, ie how many turnovers won. So yeah Ireland is doing very well on defense by those tackle stats. Nice to have going into RWC.

Agree completely about SH having more missed tackles etc due to better attack. There is an element of cultural shift too I guess, more attack priority, diff player priorities in training, selection etc. Having said that England appears to be modelling on AB play, smart move unless you are playing them!

 

[Rebel rouser]

Interesting table. Good work on putting it together.

However, I think all of the stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. A few thoughts:

- Would be nice if it was rounded to a minimum of two significant figures. The differences are important particularly when some stats are single digits, i.e. turnovers, tries, metres per run. The difference between 2.6 and 3.4 is large
- There is no way to compare stats of two different tournaments in the same table. i.e. The Super 15 is a lower level tournament than the tri nations. However, if you put together Waratahs stats and added them to this table, they'd probably look comparable. That is because total quality of the tournament is different so it is easier to get 'good' stats.
- Even given my above poinst, as pointed out by RipTide, the 6 nations have at least two easy beats - Scotland and Italy that would significantly skew their stats. Would be nice to be able to factor these out. It's like Muralitharan's bowling stats - they're better than Warnie but because he player a lot more tests against Bangladesh

 

[Balls_SlanderandRuck]

I think the 6N is a better competition in terms of atmosphere, history, passion etc. 3N is better quality wise.

That said, im starting to prefer Heineken Cup and S15 rugby to both comps.