VIDEO: How to win a World Cup
OPINION: The Rugby World Cup is less than two years away and the November Internationals are almost upon us.
As such, the questions that all rugby fans should be asking is; how do you win a World Cup? What lessons can be learned from looking back at history? How is my team placed?
For quite some time here at The 1014 we have been asking these questions and taking a close look at previous winners. What on earth can you learn?
Well, the following stats-based discussion should point you in the right direction. Yes, there will be more metrics to look at and stats don’t tell the whole picture, but we feel this is a good starting point.
Professional Era Winners
All of the stats and analysis are based on the winners of the tournament in the professional era. Before that time, rugby was obviously rugby, but not as we know it. The game has moved on so much and continues to evolve even now that it didn’t seem right to look at the heroes from the amateur days. There is probably not a lot to draw, statistically speaking, from their results and what we see nowadays. Certainly, if you are looking at World Cup cycles.
Just to refresh your memory, although it shouldn’t need refreshing, the winners in question are:
Rugby World Cup winners, number of caps
A common metric to determine if your team will be ready to win the World Cup is the number of caps metric. And by that, I am referring to the total number of caps the team has on game day, on Rugby World Cup final game day. The following image highlights the last five winners and makes for interesting reading.
You can see, that by and large, the number of caps is increasing, and increasing dramatically. I suspect the almost-1000 caps the 2015 All Blacks had is extreme, but somewhere between their 2011 number and 1000 is what a team should be aiming for. Is your team looking likely to be on target for that number? Let’s say 850 for argument’s sake?
Caps by units
Another way of looking at the number of caps is by breaking them down. Breaking them down into units.
In the image below, you will see that the only time the backline had the most average caps in a final was in 1999. Since then it has always been in the forwards. And more interesting than that, it has been the loose-trio three of the four times. What does this tell us? Does it tell us that the breakdown is all important? Does it tell us that the linking of backs and forwards is all important? Or is it just a random anomaly?
What we can be sure of is that unless the breakdown is sorted out, the loose-trio will have less of an impact, certainly in defence and competing for ruck ball than in any past World Cup. This was highlighted in a previous video where we looked at ruck percentages in The Rugby Championship.
Number of caps vs available caps
Another way of looking at the number of caps is relative to how many caps are actually available in a four-year World Cup cycle. The following image shows this.
You will see that the average caps for the 2015 winning All Blacks far outweighed the Tests the All Blacks played between the World Cup final of 2011 and the World Cup final of 2015. This points to the fact that not only do you need significant caps to win a World Cup, you need to have played for longer than the commonly thought four-year cycle.
And even if you say the 2015 team is an anomaly you still have to be playing at least 82.75% of all tests to set yourself up to win a World Cup, in a four-year cycle. Consider that for a moment.
If we are saying you need roughly 850 tests to win a World Cup that is an average of almost 57 tests each (for the starting XV). Not once in the past 20 years has a World Cup winner played that many tests between World Cups.
This combination of facts brings me on to something that has escaped a lot of people. The fact that a World Cup is not won in a four-year cycle. It takes much longer.
Rugby World Cup, the six-year cycle
I tend to think that a World Cup cycle is at least six years in length, certainly for the players.
Why do I say that? Numerous reasons, but two that stand out for me are:
1. There is a peculiar fact that all teams who have won the World Cup in the professional era have exited at a World Cup quarter-final in the previous World Cup. Yes, I realise the 2015 All Blacks didn’t, but you could argue they were, by and large, the same team that won the 2011 version.
Why does this matter I hear you say? I believe it is to do with pain-vs-expectation.
All of the teams that went out in the previous World Cup were probably expecting to make the World Cup final and from there, anything can happen. Yet they fell well short of their own expectation and the expectation of their fans. It is this pain that drives them.
I know as a Kiwi we felt it hard in 2007. Really hard. I also know that the English felt it hard in 2015. Really, really hard. This worries me. It worries me what they will be like in 2019.
2. The average number of years playing test rugby has always been more than four years. And it is tending to increase. How long have your team been playing test rugby? Will they be beyond five-and-a-half years by the time the 2019 Rugby World Cup final takes place?
Interesting side notes
All but the 2011 All Blacks had at least one player who had played test rugby for more than 10 years.
All but the 1999 Wallabies had at least one player who had recently started playing test rugby. Recently being defined as less than 2 years.
This just goes to show that even at this relatively late stage, in all likelihood, there is going to be someone who stars on the winning side that has not even played a test yet. This youthful exuberance, coupled with the hard-edge of 10 or more years at the coal face seems to work.
If anyone out there has theories on why this works it would be great to hear them.
Lastly, you often hear the media pick up on the average age of a team.
People love nothing more than analysis that is popular with the masses, yet largely incorrect. What is the definition of Dad’s Army? Surely it is well north of 30? The England team that won the Rugby World Cup were labelled Dad’s Army, which seems absurd and disrespectful from where I am sitting.
Taking a look at the average age of a team is an interesting one and complements the fact that teams generally have at least one player with over 10 years experience. And at least one with under two years experience.
I appreciate that statistics only tell part of the story. There will be instances where they are totally wrong; however, there is enough of a pattern emerging to suggest that if your team isn’t hitting a few of these metrics then perhaps 2023 is a more realistic dream.
For a more detailed discussion check out our video from The Shed.