Finding the balance between attack and defence

It’s a well warn cliché that defence wins game, but at the risk of being trite, to win, teams actually have to score more points than the opposition. As attack is a prerequisite for scoring points, a team can’t tackle their way to victory.

What the rest say

What does the data say about relative conversion rates for 22 entries? Plot graph of home Is there a major difference between home and away performances when it comes to 22 conversion/

Methodology

The more competitive a league is, the narrower the gap between defence and attack. We can theorise that a higher standard deviation shows a wider dispersal of relative strengths and weakness. A narrower dispersal shows defence and attack is more in balance. Is there an increase in the number of tried scored by forwards in recent years? Tries by hookers, considered the logical go-to players at the back of the driving maul also show an increase. Are South African teams more likely to score via forwards or backs?

Weaknesses

Of the starting lineup vs New Zealand, only half the Springbok team actually play their rugby in South Africa, so using South African club teams as a benchmark is misleading. Looking at NZ teams’ performance outside NZ also doesn’t tell us much as so few games are played outside NZ. We can also argue that strong defensive teams should be able to snuff out attacks before the opposition even reach the defensive 22m line. Ultimately, our data is from club rugby, not international rugby so comparisons are mute. At least in the northern hemisphere, Club rugby is 30-game campaign so that gives us richer data than the 18 game campaigns of super rugby teams. Regardless of what the comparative data tells us, the NZ performance in defence ranks at the very top of the defensive