Possession or Territory?

Simple question, really: which is preferable, possession or territory? (Don't answer 'both,' that's a given.)

I'm asking because the subject of box kicks has come up on another thread and seeing as so few box kicks are won by the team whose scrum half has kicked the ball, I'm wondering whether it would be better not to kick but to keep the ball, or to be further downfield albeit without the ball.

If you are getting across the gainline and getting quick ball then you want to keep it otherwise if you aren't you probably want to be kicking territorially before you are pinged or turned over.

Not all possession is good posession. The ABs always kick away slow ball.

Box kicks are good but the execution needs to be right to give the wingers a target. There are a lot of poor box kickers around.

Paul Marshall is the best box kicker in the game right now, even better than Pienaar.

Too many variables for a straight answer sorry Luckless. It depends on so many factors, including your position on the pitch, time on the clock, the score, your defence, the other sides attacking threat (particularly from deep), even the weather can play its part for example if it's wet with a swirling wind. Plus the two points Rodders mentions namely the quality of the ball and the quality of your scrum half's box kick. All I know is that when I want my team to run they invariably kick and vice versa!

In wet weather territory is 80% and possession 20%

On dry tracks the importance sways depending on the momentum your team can generate. If you are getting over the vantage line then of course possession is key, so the weighting changes.

Agree with Subs and Bilt.

Take a look at England's last 2 matches - against Scotland in good conditions we played a handling and off-loading game, dominated the breakdown and kicked rarely. Had something like 65% possession, even if much of it was in our half.
Against Ireland in bad conditions, we kicked for position much more, meaning that Ireland had very few opportunities to establish good territory. Relly it was a day that it ws easier to play without the ball.

Kicking for territory is one thing, Dummy, but box kicks make so little ground.

Box kicks aren't supposed to gain much ground though LP, they are used when you have a tight angle and want to relieve pressure on the 10 or you want to give yourself a chance of re gathering and/or putting the opposing wing under pressure.

The biggest box kicking flaw is see regularly is that they go too deep and just hand back easy possession to the opposition.

Apart from the obvious 'it depends', I think in general I would prefer territory over possesion. If the other team have the ball but can't get into your 22 then you've got a decent platform to win the game.

Box kicks do annoy me, so many SH's just cant seem to do them properly and end up just giving the ball back. To be effective the chase has to be good so that a ruck is set up where the ball is caught I think.

Posession. You can't score without the ball. Doesn't matter if you have 80% possession or 20% whenever you have the ball you have a chance.

Neither.

The best teams convert any chance to points without holding the ball and grinding through phases or constantly trying to kick for territory.

To take two examples, both NZ in the Rugby Championship and Quins in the Premiership play and succeed based on strong defense and limited possesion. They just make sure that when they have that possesion they get something from it, the rest of the time they try to keep play in and around the half way line.

I guarantee that if someone was to pull up the stats then nearly all losing teams and especially those in at the bottom of the leagues would have the majority of possesion in their games.

Conditions dictate part of it. But to score you must be within range, so it's kind of a double edged sword kind of question.

Possession without going past the gain line though is a different thing, the whole spider web is then interlinked.

Depends on the style the team plays for me. When I used to play at school we used to be very good at winning opposition line outs as well as our own so we would often go for territory pinning the opposition back, as we had a kicker who could get some decent distance. so either the opposition had to run it back at us or return possession to us.

Gee wrote:To score you must be within range

I disagree with that. Teams don't score tries from deep because they don't have the willingness to attack from deep. If it's on, you can score from anywhere on the field, but most coaches now go with the whole 'play in their half' philosophy, which saddens me. By all means have that as your main plan, but at least look before hoofing the ball. I have no evidence for this, but it wouldn't surprise me if defences aren't as switched on when they're defending in the opposition half, so looking to attack from deep might actually catch them off guard.

LP
Good point regarding the defence when you have possession deep in your own half - add to that that the defending team will typically drop the wingers and perhaps the #8 deep and a couple of others maybe 20-30m back to cover the various kicking options, and the chances for a useful mis-match are there if you are willing to put the ball through the hands.

Another thing is that turnovers happen more in deep defensive positions (because of the willingness of the attacking team to try and push something), and often happen with a few attacking players in positions ahead of the ball. Too many times we see teams not exploit these types of counter-attacking opportunity where they are against a possibly depleted and disorganised defence. Look at how effective Scotland ( ) have been in their first 2 6Ns games by countering from deep - both their tries against England came from their willingness to run from near their 22 after England lost the ball in attack (OK, the first one there was a couple of kicks first, but the reason they scored was that England had players upfield and not in a good defensive position when Brown's kick went back to Hogg), and they also had the great interception try agaisnt Italy.

As I said, it's all about having the willingness to run the ball from deep. I think it's less that players don't have the vision and more that they're not encouraged to play what's in front of them.

Territory is when you are in the opponent's half. That tends to mean, in physics, that they ain't in yours. So that's infinitely preferable to 'possession' in your own half, which tends to be useless unless you have a guy who can shoot long and true.

So onto the idea of kicking and how best it might work for you (as in helping you get into your opponent's half even though you give back possession)..... well; _________ you're meant to have a plan with that trick.

It's meant to be a design - you're meant to chase down the route of the kicked ball so that you can accomplish the deed of getting into your opponent's half and applying pressure. Meanwhile, if you kick and then sit back and wait in 'brilliant defence formations' for the opponents to attack - well, that's just bloody nonsense...period.

So yes, territory is always the better deal as you're closer to your opponent's goal posts should you extract a penalty from them, and closer to their tryline should your backline waken up and see space available to them!

But achieving 'territory' by handing back 'possesssion' is an artform not ALL sides possess. In such a scenario, the best part of valour would be in trying to go upfield brutally using ball retention and forward meat. (Human not horse! )

I don't know, Fly, I've seen plenty of donkeys in the forwards over the years...

Possession is the key but the key lies not in raising the percentage of possession you have but raising the quality of your possession.

Let's face it, gone are the days of the Brumbies and Wallabies' style of play in the 90s when you could recycle the ball and string ridiculous amounts of phases together and protect the ball with ease. The breakdown is a mess. Why do you think quick ball is prized above all else? It's not just to catch the opposition defensive line out. Without rucking, the breakdown is a mess and the longer the ball is in a ruck, the less likely you have to get the ball back.

So if you're in your 22, the best tactic is to clear your line and kick the ball deep or better still kick it out. Keep the ball away from the danger zone where losing the ball might well result in points against you either from the boot or the counter attack.

The problem lies for some teams in their thinking that kicking the ball deep is the best solution. Their chasing is then poor and they wonder why the opposition find themselves back inside your 22 so quickly. Or worse scoring.

Kicking for territory can be a cat and mouse game but the key is delivering quality possession. It doesn't matter how many times you have to tackle or defend so long as you're maximising the opportunities you have with the ball at your disposal. Monopolising possession or territory counts for little. Ensuring the periods you do have the ball are as fruitful as possible and converting your chances to points is what matters in rugby. There's a lot involved in that but that is the crux of the matter. A team who dominates territory and possession doesn't always win. A team who takes its chances when they get them and puts pressure on the opposition by ticking the scoreboard over invariably does.

Exactly Kia!

Can you please email that to Declan Kidney! .....

I did... after the third test last year in NZ. Didn't get a reply. Maybe the picture of a white bottom getting spanked didn't get through his firewall.