 |
Richie McCaw holds the Bledisloe Cup (C) Getty Images
|
The hope created in the Autumn test series and the June Internationals had given the Wallaby fan-base some belief that the team was on track as the 7 game winning streak attested to, though it must be said only Wales and Ireland were truly class teams that Australia faced during that period. However they were secured, a win is a win is a win, and that is what the Wallaby fans care about most.
The returns thus far in the Rugby Championship have not been great, though you could excuse some of it to injury with various crises that the team has experienced in the back three and at hooker, as well as Queensland couple Quade Cooper and Will Genia being unavailable thus far. It would be a mistake however to use this issue as an excuse for a team that has struggled with simple decision making and basic skills. The hopes some Australian rugby union fans allowed themselves to indulge in after the Waratahs emerged victorious in this year’s Super Rugby competition had created heightened expectations and the side has struggled to perform at a similar level. Whether those hopes were reasonable or not to begin with remains to be seen.
Conversely, the history of Super Rugby (‘SR’) reflects this national dominance, as in the 19 years since it started, a New Zealand side has won 12 times, with the other finalist being a Kiwi side 8 times. This means 20 of the possible 38 finalist spots (53%) have been filled by the New Zealand teams, and there have only been 3 years that did not feature a Kiwi franchise. This information considered it has become a remarkable feat when there is a year that a New Zealand side does not win the championship in either competition (4 times). The championship return rates are 66.7% (Tri-Nations) and 63.2% (SR) respectively, leaving a paltry 1/3rd to be divided between the Australians and South Africans, results I am sure they would rather not acknowledge.
It took a 50-50 call in the last minute of play and an unbelievable kick in this year's grand final for the New South Wales Waratahs to win their first title, but that was enough for people to start forecasting a Bledisloe Cup victory for the Wallabies. Australian selectors subsequently called on the Waratahs for 34% of their squad, with the belief being that the Waratahs championship was a psychological blow to the All Blacks or something. The Waratahs players having proven their dominance were rewarded with the opportunity to carry their success into the national set-up. Conversely, 26% (8-31) of the All Blacks squad is from the Canterbury Crusaders team that lost in the final, so while it did make some sense to say that those players would be hurt by the loss and be vulnerable, it would completely forget the similar usage of Crusaders players in Tri Nations/Rugby Championship victories in 2013, 2012, 2010 and on and on. The Crusaders after all are the most successful franchise in Super Rugby history (7 championships, 4 finals) with the talent to back it up; sometimes when they win the All Blacks wins, and sometimes when they don't win, New Zealand still wins.
While Andrew Mehrtens' comments are likely a little clouded by personal bias (being an All Blacks legend and all) the root of it is probably true: form in Super Rugby does not forecast success at Test level for a number of reasons, most significantly because it will be completely different teams competing. It is a best-of-the-best sort of scenario, especially when speaking about the four sides in the Rugby Championship competition, and the gap between club and Test level is significant. Impact players for the franchises can be rendered impotent when facing the force of one of the Championship sides, and it would not take too much effort to create a list of those who could not establish themselves in this competition.
I have been reviewing the squad make-up of the Tri Nations/Rugby Championship winning sides to see what percentage from each team is culled from championship or finalist Rugby Rugby sides (link below). An obvious directive for squad selectors is to pick those players who are “in-form” and the most in-form player will be those, in theory, that guided their franchise to the SR championship. Given the roster composition policies taken on by the franchises of Super Rugby, it is not particularly common for a foreign-national to be included on the roster and take a starring role (which makes the magic of Jacques Potgieter this year an actual ‘thing’), so the vast majority of the form Waratahs side will be available for Australian selection. And to that end, only three members of the starting XV were not in contention of a place in the Wallabies squad while the Crusaders had 13 All Blacks in their XV.
Conversely, talent has to be distributed throughout the respective franchises in Super Rugby to make each team, and the league, a viable product, and there is representation from all the franchises on the respective Championship squads for this current year (Aus, NZ, SA). For players to shine and have an opportunity to grow and develop, they require game time and lots of it and will move around as necessary. Different coaches and playing styles have an obvious impact on the advancement of a player, and having several teams provides avenues for talent to rise up. New All Black Malakai Fekitoa is an example of this, having been with the Blues but not seeing game time before changing franchises and flourishing with the Highlanders.
In the chart linked below you will see that a Super Rugby Grand Finalist franchise has typically contributed roughly 30% of the respective national side for that particular year, though there are variations and trends with respect to the franchises that present outlier cases. Additionally there was difficulty trying to find squad details going back past 2004 online (genuinely thought that would be easier) and we are really only looking at information from the last 11 tournaments to draw conclusions from.
Number 1 in my heart, Quade
The Information:
Some notes about this data:
- I am just looking at players named in the initial squad announcements (that I can find) as it is hard to account for injury call-ups across this wide of a scope. I have included hyperlinks to the various announcements I could find.
- For those teams that an official squad announcement could not be found, I went through the game notes to identify all those that were named in match-day squads, and from that group looking at who was part of a championship Super Rugby team. Should keep things balanced, as only those who participated are being counted, so the percentages won't be that distorted.
- There are additional notes in the chart itself for respective years as necessitated.
- The Argentinians have not factored into this survey, but it will be interesting to view their progress in 5 years time when they have the bulk of their national side contracted to their Super Rugby franchise. This in the end may be a truer test of the question central to this article, and if the Pumas is successful on the national stage, will that lead to victories for their club, and vice-versa?
Thoughts:
An interesting case study in evaluating form teams and their impact on the national sides is the case presented by the Chiefs who won back-to-back titles in 2012 and 2013 while also featuring the 2009 Grand Final. In their respective years at the top of the league they only provided 14.3 and 17.3 percent of the All Blacks’ Rugby Championship squad, and their 2009 side contributed 20 percent of Tri Nations squad that would finish second to South Africa. A supplementary note to this is that in 2012, 4 of the regular starting XV were already capped by island nations, with the 2013 team having 1 such player. Those selected are very important pieces in the All Black set-up (Aaron Cruden and Liam Messam) but only 4 and 5 players respectively were tabbed from those winning sides which were clearly ‘in form’.
In contrast, the Bulls from South Africa were champions 3 times in 4 years (2007, 2009, 2010) but the Springboks only secured one Tri Nations victory, in 2009, a season in which they also beat the British and Irish Lions. As an aside, 7 Bulls were in the match day 22 for the Rugby World Cup in 2007 following their Super Rugby success, which does merit a mention but not part of the scope of this post. There was an all-South African final in 2010 as the Stormers join the Bulls, and combined to comprise 68% of the Springbok side for the Tri-Nations as the selectors favoured the in-form talent. This would not bring success however as the Boks finished bottom of the table. It is something from the other end of the spectrum the Chiefs occupied: The Bulls players, being part of supremely successful team in Super Rugby competition could not replicate that when they formed the backbone of the Springbok sides that were mostly underwhelming during their reign, barring 2009, and the players could not bring their club success to the Tri-Nations environment. The few Chiefs players who have featured (though there are many more that could have it must be said) have been important parts in the All Blacks machine. For all the respective combinations (Sharks front row, Bulls second row etc) and tremendous experience that were supposed to give the South Africans an advantage, they have routinely struggled to hurdle the All Blacks, winning only 5 of the last 18 matches since the Bulls period of dominance began. That period was begat by Heyneke Meyer, the current Springbok coach who is yet to attain victory over New Zealand.
On the Australian side, in two of the three years that a franchise has won Super Rugby the Wallabies have taken the pole position in the Championship so well that’s a nice 66.6% chance there, it would be prudent to keep in mind those titles are few and far between. There has been an Australian side on the losing end of an SR final five times, and on one of those occasions (2000, when the Brumbies were in the midst of SR dominance) did the Wallabies win the title, though admittedly they won in 2001 as well with the Brumbies claiming the SR championship. We need only looked back to last year when there was a clamour for the majority of the Brumbies squad to be selected because of their performance in Super Rugby. How did that go? Not good. A year on, several members of that side have proven to be useful Test pieces (Scott Fardy, Matt Toomua) in addition to those that had already established themselves in the Wallabies’ match-day squad, but the initial returns did not validate the idea that ‘form’ will carry on to the gold jersey.
That there is this much buzz about the 'Tahs winning Super Rugby indicates just how difficult it is. The last Australian championship side in Super Rugby was the Queensland Reds in 2011 and they did form the bulk of the first Tri-Nations champion for a decade, but it was a shorter tournament due to the World Cup that year, and that certainly played into their favour, because statistically they don’t beat the All Blacks that often:
|
2004-2013
|
30
|
5
|
24
|
1
|
18.33
|
534
|
797
|
-263
|
48
|
39
|
67
|
5
|
That’s 18.33% success rate is not that good (better than the 12.50 percent that all AB competition combined has though, and the Wallabies rate against SA is on the positive side of things: here) and it’s fair to say that if they had to face them again in that tournament Australia may not have come out on top.
Conclusions:
Australia and South Africa have only won the tournament 6 times combined, 3 of those victories paralleled by a national Super Rugby franchise, which would lend itself to the idea that there is a correlation. Adding in the success of the New Zealand franchises furthers this, as in total there is overlap on 13 occasions, a significant 72% of the time. On the whole, a nation's franchise winning a Super Rugby title precedes national success in the Rugby Championship the majority of the time.
However, with a little more context it brings some clarity. It would be fair to say that the runner-up side in the Super Rugby competition, and its players, had to be in fantastic form to get to that position. In most instances, a large percentage of the subsequent Tri Nations squads was comprised of the finalist team, on a level similar to that of the champions. Is getting to the finals a harbinger of success when it comes to the Test team? On 6 occasions an Australian club has lost in the final, and in only 1 of those years did the Wallabies top the Tri Nations table. There are 5 times a South African franchise finished 2nd (twice to another South African side) and none of those years saw a victorious Springbok side. 1-in-11 for Australia and South Africa then when their franchises finish second. I think within that scope, it is fair to say that having successful franchises is not a guarantor of national success in the Rugby Championship.
Moreover, it must be remembered that there is a significant bias in these numbers, and the caveat is they are coloured in red and black. The Crusaders have dominated this competition, with 11 Finals appearances, plus they have made the semifinals almost every year that such a format was used (here) that they cast a long shadow not only over Super Rugby but Test level as well. Numerous All Black captains in the last decade (Thorne-McCaw-Read) have come from the Cru, and without going into a full analysis of the franchise and Canterbury history, the early and sustained success of the team has led to talent being attracted to the region and subsequently sent on to the All Blacks.
The crux of this article is if you think the All Blacks would have achieved the same results without the Crusaders being victorious so often. Since professionalism, the success of the two has been mostly one and the same, but if it was not the Crusaders I believe that it would be another team. In the early years it was the Blues, and recently the Chiefs had a run at the top. The Hurricanes and Highlanders have had time in the intervening years were they put together enough to make the playoffs but it has been few and far between. Even then, they have consistently sent players into the All Blacks, pivotal players (Conrad and Aaron Smith, for example. No relation), and talent from all 5 teams will continue to be identified and incorporated into the group. To that point, it is the responsibility of the coaches and selectors to find the right balance in the Test set-up, and develop systems and players capable of executing them at the highest level consistently. It takes patience, persistence and probably a bit of luck.
The harbingers of Australian success, or “revival” as some wish to call it, is that their franchises collectively have been improving (3 of the last 4 finals have featured an Australian side) and they have developed some incredible talent throughout their squad, but 1 single victory in the finals of a competition that has been dominated by New Zealand teams is not a marker being set down. The All Blacks set an incredibly high standard, and it will take the best talent from all five Australian franchises to create a team that can confront them.However, with a little more context it brings some clarity. It would be fair to say that the runner-up side in the Super Rugby competition, and its players, had to be in fantastic form to get to that position. In most instances, a large percentage of the subsequent Tri Nations squads was comprised of the finalist team, on a level similar to that of the champions. Is getting to the finals a harbinger of success when it comes to the Test team? On 6 occasions an Australian club has lost in the final, and in only 1 of those years did the Wallabies top the Tri Nations table. There are 5 times a South African franchise finished 2nd (twice to another South African side) and none of those years saw a victorious Springbok side. 1-in-11 for Australia and South Africa then when their franchises finish second. I think within that scope, it is fair to say that having successful franchises is not a guarantor of national success in the Rugby Championship.
Moreover, it must be remembered that there is a significant bias in these numbers, and the caveat is they are coloured in red and black. The Crusaders have dominated this competition, with 11 Finals appearances, plus they have made the semifinals almost every year that such a format was used (here) that they cast a long shadow not only over Super Rugby but Test level as well. Numerous All Black captains in the last decade (Thorne-McCaw-Read) have come from the Cru, and without going into a full analysis of the franchise and Canterbury history, the early and sustained success of the team has led to talent being attracted to the region and subsequently sent on to the All Blacks.
The crux of this article is if you think the All Blacks would have achieved the same results without the Crusaders being victorious so often. Since professionalism, the success of the two has been mostly one and the same, but if it was not the Crusaders I believe that it would be another team. In the early years it was the Blues, and recently the Chiefs had a run at the top. The Hurricanes and Highlanders have had time in the intervening years were they put together enough to make the playoffs but it has been few and far between. Even then, they have consistently sent players into the All Blacks, pivotal players (Conrad and Aaron Smith, for example. No relation), and talent from all 5 teams will continue to be identified and incorporated into the group. To that point, it is the responsibility of the coaches and selectors to find the right balance in the Test set-up, and develop systems and players capable of executing them at the highest level consistently. It takes patience, persistence and probably a bit of luck.
*did count SA participation twice in 2007 or 2010, the years both finalists came from the Republic, since it is about whether you have a team in either Grand Final slot.
No comments:
Post a Comment