SA's Champions Cup woes a lesson in Risk vs Reward
Today at 01:03 AM
South Africa's struggles in the Champions Cup may have more to do with how they play, than where and when, writes ZELIM NEL.
After two rounds of Champions Cup action, the three SA teams in the competition have combined for one win in six matches, and an aggregate score of 112-215.
The Sharks opened their campaign by crunching Exeter, though it's worth noting that Chiefs are winless at the bottom of the Premiership table. The Bulls are SA flagbearers in the URC with a 5-1 record good for third place after seven rounds. Those same Bulls went down 27-5 at Saracens and then 30-21 to Northampton at Loftus.
State of the URC: SA rivals reload for red-hot derbies
Arduous travel schedules, short weeks and injuries have certainly contributed to the problem, but I'm not sure it's as simple as lumping responsibility on uncontrollable factors.
A clue to the quality of the players in the competition is in the name, Champions Cup. The best clubs in the world are on display and matches are decided by much finer margins than in the URC where the quality gap between the best and worst teams is significant.
In the URC, SA teams can get away with a 'better luck next time' mindset when an offload doesn't go to hand, or eight phases of attack end in a turnover.
In the Champions Cup, there is no next time.
This reality places a greater premium on risk management over razzle-dazzle rugby, perhaps something relatable to the difference in approach to winning consistently in the Test arena versus Super Rugby.
In the first seven rounds of the URC, 54 matches were played with one ending in a draw, while 24 matches were played in the first two rounds of the Champions Cup,
In 54 URC matches, the team that made more ball-carries won 26 matches, which equates to a 49% win rate.
Similarly, an analysis of URC matches showed that 30 of 54 matches were won by the team that made a higher volume of tackles (57%), the team that conceded more penalties won 33 matches (62%) and a higher volume of kicks was common to the winners of 35 matches (66%).
The same inspection of the first two rounds of the Champions Cup shows that 19 of 24 matches were won by the team that made a higher volume of tackles (79%), the team that made the higher volume of kicks won 18 matches (75%), making more carries was common to teams that won 10 matches (42%) and the winning team conceded more penalties in nine matches (38%).
Without getting bogged down in the minutiae, it's harder to win in the Champions Cup without adhering to the pragmatism of kicking and defence than it is in the URC where the wider margins allow attack-first teams to get away with less efficient tactics.
Of the 16 possible combinations of these four metrics (Ball-carries, Tackles, Kicks from Hand, Penalties Conceded), the most efficient combination is to make fewer carries while recording more tackles, kicks and penalties conceded than your opponent – this trend profile has accounted for 26% of the wins in the URC and 21% in the Champions Cup (best in each competition).
Making more carries while conceding fewer penalties and making fewer tackles and kicks is a profile that has an 8% win rate in the URC and 4% in the Champions Cup.
The logistical and financial obstacles facing South African teams are real, but this didn't stop the Stormers from winning the inaugural URC title, or the Bulls reaching two finals – the first of which they advanced to after beating Leinster in the 2021-22 Dublin semi-final!
South African rugby, on the whole, has never ventured further from the monochrome plan that made the Boks world champions in 1995 and 2007, and the Bulls three-time Super Rugby champions.
Risk management is decisive when equally-matched teams square up in a tough competition like the Champions Cup, and perhaps our contenders will have more success when they making winning the only objective.
Photo: David Rogers/Getty Images
The post SA’s Champions Cup woes a lesson in Risk vs Reward appeared first on SA Rugby magazine.
