How the Game Was Played Last Season

1 Introduction

This report looks honestly at how we played in the AIL last season and how teams played against Old Crescent RFC. Not how we planned for it, or how we wanted it to be played, but what the data tells us happened across 16 rounds of competition.

The purpose is straightforward: use last season’s data to shape this season’s training sessions. Every section asks two questions — what did the game look like, and what does that mean for how we prepare? We have also benchmarked our numbers against published research on what it takes to win at professional level in the URC, World Cup and Premiership, giving us an external yardstick, not just an AIL one.

The data covers four main areas: Possession Sources, 22 Metre Entries, Tries by Source, Penalties Conceded. We also take a quick look at Linebreaks, Tackle Completion and Bounce Rate, and Benchmarking Against Pro Rugby Winning Numbers.

2 Possession Sources — How You Get the Ball

One of the most valuable things we can do as a coaching group is ask: where does possession actually come from in AIL rugby? Not where we want it to come from. The answer should directly shape how we structure our training sessions.

Table 1 — Possession Sources ranked by our volume (highest to lowest)
Source	Us	Our %	Opposition	Opp %
Lineout	148	33.3%	159	36.5%
Kick Return	94	21.2%	113	25.9%
Turnover	85	19.1%	64	14.7%
Scrum	62	14.0%	57	13.1%
Kick Recovered	22	5.0%	17	3.9%
Restart	21	4.7%	13	3.0%
Tap and Go	12	2.7%	13	3.0%

The lineout is our biggest single possession source at 33% of all our possessions. Set piece remains our most important platform and must be the most developed area of our game. The opposition’s lineout made up 36% of their starting possessions.

Kick return (21%) and turnover (19%) account for 40% of our possession combined. These transition moments are unstructured, fast, and often chaotic. Yet last season we spent very little training time on transition play. The data says these two situations are fundamental to how AIL rugby is actually played. Our training sessions must now reflect that. The opposition also gain 40% of their total possessions from turnovers and kick returns, so our transition defence must match our transition attack this season.

The kick return gap deserves honest scrutiny. The opposition generated 113 possession starts from kick returns versus our 94. Is our kicking game making it too easy for teams to run back at us? When and how we kick must be looked at deeper and most importantly worked at in training. We also only regained an average of 10% of our kicks across these 16 games. The most kicks we regained in a game was 4 against Barnhall H, and there were 3 games last season where we regained zero kicks (Ballymena H, Dungannon H, and Corinthians A). Research on winning performances in the URC shows that kicks from hand is the primary win predictor. A team kicking more than their opposition leads to an increased probability of winning, and this is fundamentally about field position. The closer the game is played to the opposition’s try line, whether we are defending or attacking, the more likely we are to have positive outcomes.

2.1 Training Implication — Transition and Set Piece

Kick return and turnover situations must feature in every training week, they are 40% of how we win the ball. We must also work on our kick-and-regain game, averaging only 2 regained kicks per game is not good enough. This will be improved by players doing extras on these closed skills.

Alongside that, the lineout volume for both teams confirms that we must build the strongest lineout in the league. We showed last season we have the ingredients. We averaged 12.7 lineouts per game (17 was the most, with Wanderers A being our lowest at 6). Our lineout success averaged 79% across the season, hitting 100% once against Dungannon A. In our 5 wins our lineout operated at 82%, and that fell to 78% in the losses. We will also maul much more, our maul will become a weapon. We will limit ourselves to two lineout launch plays per game to focus the group on mauling as the primary threat from set piece.

Our lineout defence was very good last season but we need it to be better. Research on English Premiership teams found lineout success rates of 87% for top four teams versus 85% for bottom four, the gap in raw success was small, but top teams stole 17% of opposition lineouts versus just 9% for bottom teams. Lineout steal rate discriminates between winning and losing teams far more than lineout success rate does. The opposition lineout performed at a 71% average against us, with Greystones A being the best at 92%. No team hit 100% against us, that must remain a standard we protect this season.

3 22 Metre Entries — Getting In and Converting

Getting into the opposition 22 is one of the most reliable predictors of match outcomes in rugby at all levels. Below we look at the volume of entries, how efficiently we converted those entries into points, and the routes we used to get there.

3.1 Entry Summary

Table 2 — 22 Entry Summary
Team	22 Entries	Points Per Entry (PPE)	22 Points Scored
Us	109	2.19	239
Opposition	115	2.61	300

Table 2 is the most telling number in this report. Despite entering the opposition 22 only six fewer times (109 vs 115), we scored 61 fewer points from those entries (239 vs 300). The PPE gap (2.19 for us vs 2.61 for the opposition) means the opposition are converting their 22 entries at a higher rate than we are.

This is an attack quality problem, not a volume problem. We are getting in the door, we just need to be more ruthless once we are there. Improving our 22 attack is one of the clearest levers we have to improve our scoring this season. We must also become much more patient in the 22, we forced too much last season. One small example of this would be moving away from our maul to tap & go plays, we must use our maul more. The mindset we build this season is simple: we always leave the opposition 22 with something. Our attack overall last season was not upo to the standard we need not just in the 22, we will look at this a bit deeper later in the report.

3.2 22 Entry Routes

Table 3 — 22 Entry Routes
Route	Us	Our %	Opposition	Opp %
Poor Exit	13	11.9%	11	9.6%
Penalty Won → Kicked	31	28.4%	37	32.2%
Multi Phase Attack	58	53.2%	52	45.2%
Maul In	5	4.6%	9	7.8%
50/22	2	1.8%	6	5.2%

In 16 games the opposition kicked the ball into our 22 37 times from penalties we gave away. The 50/22 gap (2 vs 6) is a specific target for this season. Developing our kicking game to threaten the 50/22 is on the agenda.

3.3 Training Implication — 22 Attack Quality

More time must be spent on patient 22 attack sessions, not just getting in, but finishing. The PPE gap of 0.42 points per entry across 109 entries cost us approximately 46 points over the season, a promotion’s worth of points left on the field. The word ruthless is thrown around a lot in rugby, but we must find an element of this in our 22 attack. We will continue with war, face to race once we get slowed down but we need to mature in our calmness in there.

4 Tries by Source

Understanding where tries come from helps us prioritise which platforms deserve the most training investment. It also tells us, honestly, where our attack is underperforming relative to the opportunities we are creating.

Table 4 — Tries by Source
Source	Us	Our %	Opposition	Opp %
Lineout	20	58.8%	26	57.8%
Tap and Go	5	14.7%	8	17.8%
Scrum	4	11.8%	5	11.1%
Turnover	3	8.8%	2	4.4%
Kick Return	2	5.9%	4	8.9%

The lineout is the biggest try source for both teams, but we are behind (20 vs 26). Given that lineout is our single biggest possession source at 33%, this conversion gap matters. We are generating the platform; we need better lineout attack structures to convert it into tries.

Kick return was our second most common source of possession at 21% (94 possessions), yet it produced just 2 tries. A conversion rate of roughly 2%. What do we do in the first 3–5 phases after we catch a kick? This is 21% of our possession and it is producing almost no tries. It is a clear area of underdevelopment that must be addressed this season.

5 Penalties Conceded

Penalties conceded is one of the most reliable game-losing metrics in rugby at any level. Giving the opposition easy field position and points from the tee is expensive. Across 16 rounds we conceded 159 penalties, an average of 9.9 per game. The breakdown of where those penalties are coming from tells us exactly where to focus.

The top three penalty types — Scrum (39), Carrier Not Releasing (28), and High Tackle (22) — account for 56% of all penalties conceded. Address these three and we cut our penalty count almost in half.

Scrum (39 — 2.4 per game): The single biggest source. At 2.4 scrum penalties per game we are handing the opposition regular attacking platforms and energy, scrum penalties gives energy to a team. This needs a dedicated scrum review, identifying whether the penalties are coming from engagement, binding, wheeling, or individual technique.
Carrier Not Releasing (28 — 1.75 per game): We need to bring a genuine hard edge to our breakdown this season. We will drill the technique, but we also need players to take personal ownership of this. Being isolated as a ball carrier is an issue but we must fix the support players, how fast we get there and the aggression you hit these breakdowns with.
High Tackle (22 — 1.375 per game): With the current laws and referee interpretation at AIL level, this is a serious concern, not just for penalty count but for the risk of yellow and red cards. Tackle technique and head placement must be a pre-season contact priority.

6 Linebreaks — Our Biggest Attacking Problem

Linebreaks were a major issue for us last season, or more accurately, the lack of them. We had a total of 62 linebreaks across 16 games, an average of just 3.9 per game. Eight against Wanderers H was our highest. Put another way, we needed on average 30.4 carries to produce one linebreak. In the game against Cashel A we needed 56.5 carries per linebreak.

At the 2019 Rugby World Cup, winning teams averaged 14.8 linebreaks per game versus 6.5 for losing teams — more than double. Winning teams also averaged 543 carry metres versus 300 for losing teams. The linebreak rate per carry was 0.111 for winners versus 0.063 for losers — meaning winners broke the line roughly every 9 carries, compared to every 16 for losing teams. Our average of 1 linebreak every 30.4 carries shows exactly how much work our attack needs to do.

Barchart 5 — Carries per Linebreak by Match

The chart above tells the story clearly. Our 5 winning performances are all clustered at the efficient end, when we broke the line regularly, we are more likely to win. Attack efficiency, not attack volume, is what wins matches. As I mentioned earlier our overall attack last season was not good enough, we will aim to improve our attack shape to give us more punch, also our breakdown will be better, but the biggest area we are going after is our mindset on attack and how you as players actually want to attack. Players have requested more freedom in our attack shape and to push the offloading game more. We will work much more on our catch pass, offloading and decision making in training this season. Our thinking around kicking and the importance of feild position will remain strong but we want to give the players more freedom when we do have the ball.

7 Tackle Completion and Bounce

International tackle completion rates average 93% in the Six Nations, 87% in the Tri Nations, and 86% at the Rugby World Cup. At RWC 2023, Australia missed an average of 22.3 tackles per game with a tackle success rate of 82%, and that directly contributed to their group stage exit. Italy ranked fifth for tackle success at 87% but still went out, showing that tackling alone does not win matches, but poor tackling guarantees losing them.

The average number of tackles made per team per game has risen from 48 in 1987 to 169 in 2023, the volume of defensive work has more than tripled, making completion rate an even more critical metric. Our data shows we made 188 tackles against Cashel A, our highest in any game. The number of tackles does not matter, it is the completion rate that counts. We averaged 90% across the 16 games, rising to 92% in our 5 wins and falling to 89% in our losses. These are still strong numbers, but the high tackles that are costing us penalties are counted against us here, so improving that discipline alone will move our completion rate up.

In connection to tackling, we will place a significant focus on our bounce to feet rate, our aim will remain at 90%+ this season. Last season we averaged 80%, with our worst day being Wanderers A where we hit a worrying 66%.

Table 5 — Average KPIs: Wins vs Losses (all 16 matches)
Outcome	Games	Our Lineout %	Opp Lineout %	Our Scrum %	Carries / Linebreak	Total Kicks	Kick Regained %	Tackle %	Bounce to Feet %
Loss	11	78.4%	70.8%	95.5%	30.9	19.4	10.6%	89.3%	78.9%
Win	5	81.8%	71.2%	94.8%	29.1	18.8	9.9%	92.0%	83.4%

8 Benchmarking Against Pro Rugby Winning Numbers

This section places our AIL performance data directly alongside the published benchmarks from research on what it takes to win in the URC, Premiership, and international rugby, giving us an external standard, not just an internal comparison between our own wins and losses.

Table 6 — Our Numbers vs Pro Rugby Winning Benchmarks
Metric	Our Wins (avg)	Our Losses (avg)	Pro Rugby Winning Benchmark	Source
Tackle Completion %	92.0%	89.3%	90–93% (Six Nations / URC winning teams)	Performance Analysis in Rugby Union — PMC Systematic Review
Bounce to Feet (Defensive Pressure) %	83.4%	78.9%	Target: 90%+ — our own defensive identity metric	Old Crescent RFC Coding Data
Lineout Success %	81.8%	78.4%	85%+ expected; 15%+ steal rate is the differentiator	Nicholls et al. Super Rugby; Premiership Research
Carries per Linebreak	29.1	30.9	~9 carries per linebreak (RWC 2019 winning teams)	RWC 2019 Winner/Loser Analysis
Kick Regained %	9.9%	10.6%	Kick more than the opposition and regain more — direction matters	Scott et al. 2022 URC Study
Scrum Success %	94.8%	95.5%	Near 100% own ball; fewer scrum penalties than opposition	Scott et al. 2022 URC Study

9 Linking It All Together

At the 2023 Rugby World Cup, more than half of all tries scored in Tier 1 test matches came from possessions that started in the attacking 22, not from carrying the ball from deep. Elite rugby is fundamentally a territory game. You kick to get into the right part of the field, then you score from a patient but high tempo attack, with good decision making. If we reduce our penalty count, we also reduce how much opposition teams access our 22 from penalty kicks to touch. Fix our discipline, improve our territory with a better kicking / kick regain game, become more clinical in the 22, improve our volume of linebreaks we create and build a formidable lineout both sides of the ball.

10 Season Summary — What We Change and Why

Table 7 — From Data to Training: What We Change and Why
What the Data Shows	What We Will Do Differently
Lineout = 33% of possession; success rate drops in losses	Build the best lineout in the AIL — maul as the primary set piece weapon
Kick return + turnover = 40% of possession; 2 tries from kick return all season	Transition attack and kick return scenarios in every training week
PPE gap: 2.19 us vs 2.61 opposition — 46 points left on the field	Dedicated 22 attack sessions — patient, structured, always leave with something
Penalties: 9.9 per game; top 3 types account for 56% of total	Target high tackles and breakdown discipline — top 3 penalty types are coachable
Carries per linebreak averaged 30.4 — rising above 50 in heavy losses	Attack efficiency is the focus — clean breaks per carry tracked every session
Tackle % drops in losses — falls below pro winning benchmark	Tackle technique in every session — 92%+ completion is our seasonal floor
Bounce to feet % higher in wins — our defensive identity metric	Bounce to feet is a non-negotiable defensive standard — tracked every game
50/22: opposition used it 3x more than us	Introduce 50/22 as an attacking weapon — train kick selection and execution

Data sourced from Hudl Sportscode coding — Old Crescent RFC AIL Season 2024/25, Rounds 1–16.
Match KPI data coded and compiled by Michael Harding.
Pro rugby benchmarks sourced from Scott et al. (2022), Nicholls et al. (2024), and the PMC Systematic Review of Performance Analysis in Rugby Union.
Report prepared by Michael Harding, Head Coach & Performance Analyst, Old Crescent RFC.