13 Tries to Eight, But Only Five Points Between Them

After three Tests between South Africa and New Zealand, the aggregate scoreboard could hardly be closer. Look beneath it, however, and the numbers suggest two different ways of converting pressure into points and perhaps some lessons for both sides on the road to Rugby World Cup 2027.

Three Tests, 161 points and just five separating the two great rivals. New Zealand have scored 83 points to South Africa’s 78. Yet beneath those totals sits a statistic which perhaps tells us rather more about how this series has developed: the All Blacks have scored 13 tries to the Springboks’ eight, while South Africa have kicked eight penalty goals and New Zealand none.

It would be tempting to turn those numbers into the traditional caricature. New Zealand want to play rugby and score tries; South Africa want to squeeze opponents through their forwards and kick goals.

The three Tests suggest something considerably more sophisticated and South Africa now lead the four-match series 2-1 after their 29-24 victory at FNB Stadium, and the third Test provided perhaps the best example yet of why conventional attacking statistics do not always tell us who is controlling a Test match. New Zealand made 129 carries to South Africa’s 95 and produced 12 line breaks to five. The teams nevertheless scored four tries each and South Africa won. 

So perhaps the real question is not which team attacks more.

It is what each team does with the pressure it creates.

Thirteen tries is difficult to ignore

Across the opening three Tests, New Zealand’s try-scoring advantage has been substantial.

It began at Ellis Park, where the All Blacks won 33-16 and outscored South Africa five tries to one. Will Jordan crossed twice, with Josh Moorby, Fabian Holland and Luke Jacobson also scoring. South Africa’s only try came through Andre Esterhuizen, while Cheslin Kolbe kicked three penalty goals. 

Cape Town produced something rather different. South Africa responded with a 33-26 victory, but New Zealand again won the try count, four to three. The difference was Kolbe’s boot: four penalty goals and three conversions contributed 18 points. 

Then came Soweto. Four tries each, but South Africa won 29-24, with Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu adding a penalty to his two conversions. 

Add everything together and the contrast becomes striking.

New Zealand: 13 tries, nine conversions, no penalty goals and 83 points.

South Africa: eight tries, six conversions, eight penalty goals, plus a penalty try within that try total and 78 points.

There are only five points between them and that is worth thinking about because the difference is not simply one of attacking ambition.

What happens before the three points?

A penalty goal appears on a scoreboard as three points. What the scoreboard doesn’t tell us is how those three points were created.

That matters particularly when analysing South Africa.

A scrum which marches an opponent backwards and wins a penalty is an attacking weapon. So is a driving maul which forces defenders offside. So is a breakdown contest which leaves an opponent with little option but to infringe.

The kick at goal is merely the final transaction.

South Africa’s eight penalty goals have produced 24 points across the series, but the more revealing question is what preceded them. They represent occasions when the Springboks were able to turn pressure into something tangible without necessarily having to cross the try-line.

New Zealand have made different choices and created different outcomes and their 13 tries demonstrate an extraordinary ability to convert attacking opportunities into five or seven points. At Ellis Park particularly, South Africa had opportunities but New Zealand were far more ruthless when theirs appeared. The All Blacks scored five tries from a game in which both sides were credited with seven clean breaks. 

That is efficiency of a different kind.

Cape Town changed the equation

The second Test may actually be the most revealing of the three.

New Zealand again scored more tries, four against three and still lost by seven points.

Kolbe’s four penalty goals were decisive. South Africa had established a 30-14 advantage before the All Blacks’ late attacking surge brought them back into the contest. 

There is an important strategic point here. Three points do more than change the scoreboard. They change what the opposition subsequently needs to do.

A three-point lead can become six, then nine. Suddenly a team that might otherwise remain patient has to start chasing tries. Decisions change. Penalties that might have been kicked towards the corner become attacking necessities rather than choices.

South Africa are exceptionally good at making opponents play the game the Springboks want them to play.

The penalty goal is part of that.

Then came the Calabash

If Cape Town demonstrated the value of accumulating points, FNB Stadium showed another side of South Africa’s game. For substantial periods, New Zealand’s attack looked extremely dangerous. Twelve line breaks against five is not a marginal statistical advantage. Neither is 129 carries against 95. 

Yet the match gradually moved towards South Africa.

The scrum became increasingly influential. The Springboks generated repeated scrum penalties and eventually a penalty try as New Zealand’s pack came under pressure close to its own line. Later, Malcolm Marx scored from a powerful driving maul as South Africa established the advantage which ultimately won the match. 

This is where the old description of South Africa as simply a side that “kicks its points” becomes inadequate.

The Springboks scored four tries; Kurt-Lee Arendse and Jesse Kriel scored through the backs, Marx through the maul, and the fourth was the penalty try created by the scrum. 

They weren’t refusing to attack. They were attacking in different ways.

The scoreboard does not value beauty

Perhaps this is the central lesson from the series so far. Rugby statistics are useful, but they can tempt us into assigning equal value to things that do not necessarily have equal consequences.

A line break that ends with a turnover is still recorded as a line break.

A dominant scrum that produces three points is recorded as a penalty goal. One looks like attack and the other looks like kicking.

Yet only one has changed the score.

The third Test illustrated that particularly well. New Zealand’s 12 line breaks demonstrate that their attacking system was repeatedly capable of finding weaknesses in the South African defence. Losing after creating that much opportunity should concern the All Blacks more than the five-point margin itself.

The issue isn’t whether they can break South Africa down.

They plainly can but the question is whether they are sufficiently ruthless once they have done so.

South Africa have a warning too

There is an equal danger in interpreting the series as proof that the Springbok model is superior.

Ellis Park provides the counterargument.

South Africa kicked three penalty goals there, but New Zealand scored five tries. The result was 33-16. Once the All Blacks began converting their opportunities into tries, three-point increments were never going to be enough. 

That matters looking towards 2027.

South Africa’s set piece, physicality and ability to accumulate scoreboard pressure remain formidable weapons, but there will be matches when those areas do not produce dominance. Against a side capable of scoring tries quickly, the Springboks need another route.

Increasingly, they appear to understand that. Arendse’s try in Soweto wasn’t produced by ten-man rugby. Neither was Kriel’s. South Africa’s attacking development under Rassie Erasmus has been about adding dimensions without sacrificing the foundations which have made them so successful.

That may ultimately be more significant than the eight tries themselves.

What should New Zealand learn?

New Zealand’s lesson may be almost the reverse; they don’t need to become South Africa.

Thirteen tries in three Tests against the Springboks is evidence that their attacking identity is working. They have repeatedly found ways through one of international rugby’s most aggressive defensive systems.

Perhaps they need to become slightly more comfortable taking what the opposition gives them. Zero penalty goals across three Tests is an extraordinary statistic.

It doesn’t mean New Zealand have not received kickable penalties. It reflects, among other things, choices about when to pursue tries rather than three points.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that philosophy. A successful kick to the corner can produce seven points rather than three; with Test matches between the world’s best sides are frequently decided by margins far smaller than four points.

After three matches of this series, the aggregate difference is five.

Two philosophies moving towards each other?

The traditional descriptions of these teams are becoming less useful.

South Africa are not simply a power side. Their backs are increasingly capable of creating and finishing tries from open play.

New Zealand are not simply trying to run around opponents. Their forwards have competed for long periods against arguably the most formidable pack in world rugby.

What we may actually be watching is two rugby philosophies gradually borrowing from one another.

South Africa are adding attacking variety to their ability to squeeze opponents.

New Zealand may need to add a little more scoreboard pragmatism to their ability to open them up.

Neither needs to become the other but with Rugby World Cup 2027 approaching, each might benefit from possessing a little more of what the other does best.

Baltimore gives us the fourth experiment

South Africa travel to the United States leading 2-1, knowing victory would secure their first series triumph over New Zealand since 1976. New Zealand can still level the series. 

There will also be significant disruption. New Zealand will be without captain Ardie Savea after his shoulder injury in Soweto, while South Africa have lost Kolbe after he suffered a broken jaw. 

Kolbe’s absence is particularly relevant to our statistical story. The man responsible for much of South Africa’s penalty-goal return will not be there.

So when the fourth Test begins, it may be worth keeping four numbers in mind.

13 tries to eight.

Eight penalty goals to none.

83 points to 78.

And, most importantly, 2-1 to South Africa.

After three Tests, New Zealand have crossed the try-line considerably more often, yet the Springboks lead the series.

That doesn’t tell us that one way of playing rugby is better than another.

It tells us that at the highest level, creating opportunities and converting pressure are not quite the same thing  and the teams capable of doing both when the circumstances demand it are usually the ones still standing at the end of a World Cup.