Performance determinants in elite men’s sport: a tactical analysis of ball possession effectiveness at the 2023 Rugby World Cup

1. Introduction

Rugby is a cooperative-opposition sport characterized by the complexity of its actions, mainly due to the great diversity of playing styles that define successful teams from unsuccessful ones [1], with ball possession (BP) being one of the most determining indicators [2, 3, 4]. In men’s rugby union, this complexity is further accentuated by the high physical and tactical demands typical of male elite competition.

In team sports, BP is a fundamental concept that influences technical, tactical, and regulatory roles [5, 6, 7] and has been associated with other conditional variables [8]. However, in men’s rugby, its definition and operationalization present challenges due to the lack of a univocal description in the official regulations. Although the World Rugby regulations do not provide a precise definition, they establish the mechanisms by which teams acquire, contest, and retain BP [9].

From an analytical perspective, several studies have identified BP as a key factor in male rugby team performance and its impact on competition outcomes [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The systematic review by Guerrero-Esteban et al. [15] and Colomer et al. [16] highlighted differences in BP between winning and losing teams. Winning male teams exhibit a greater number of BPs initiated in static phases [17, 18], recover more balls [19], and tend to initiate BPs in areas close to the try zone [20, 21]. Furthermore, during the development phase of BP, winning teams tend to use fewer rucks and reduce their duration [14, 18, 22], which optimizes their offensive effectiveness.

Therefore, performance in men’s rugby can vary significantly depending on the type of competition and the level of play [19, 23]. Differences in BP have been observed in international tournaments such as the Men’s Rugby World Cup (RWC) [18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28], the Six Nations Championship (men’s category) [14, 29] as well as in regional and local men’s leagues [30, 31]. However, comparison between these studies is difficult due to the different samples represented, level of play, changes in regulations, differences in data collection, and the statistical treatments used.

Several studies have analyzed BP in different editions of the Men’s RWC, finding differentiating patterns between winning and losing male teams. For example, van Rooyen et al. [20] analyzed the 2003 Men’s RWC and found differences in BP duration, points scored, and turnovers. In the 2007 Men’s RWC, Diedrick & van Rooyen [26] identified that 81% of winning male teams scored more tries than their opponents. Bennett et al. [24] found that in the 2015 Men’s RWC, lineouts won, scrums won, line breaks, and hand kicks were key performance indicators. More recently, in the 2019 Men’s RWC, Bunker & Spencer [22] showed that winning male teams achieved more carrying meters and broke defensive lines more frequently in the pool and play-off stages. On the other hand, studies such as the one developed by Callinan et al. [32], which analyzed key performance indicators between winning and losing teams, concluded that winning teams were characterized by greater efficiency in ball disposal, greater ruck speed, more successful conversions, more chances created, and more appropriate on-field tactics. Conversely, losing teams reported less effective kicking and a greater number of lost rucks.

A recurring limitation across studies is the diversity in data collection and analysis methods in response to the different specific actions presented in rugby [16]. Video analysis software, official statistics, digital platforms, and notational analysis have been used, but many studies do not detail the observation instruments used. According to Colomer et al. [16], performance analysis in men’s rugby still fails to consider confounding variables such as opponent behavior, field location, match period, and variables determined by the differences between winning and losing teams. In this regard, Villarejo et al. [33] designed and validated a specific observation sheet for BP in professional rugby, structured into 96 items that assess the onset, development, and completion of BP. However, its application in scientific research has been diverse [34, 35, 36], while its use in male rugby studies has been limited.

Despite the differences in the RWC editions, data collection methods, and statistical analyses employed, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that there are significant differences in BP between winning and losing male teams [37]. However, to date, no studies have been identified that analyze the effectiveness of BP at the 2023 Men’s RWC. Consequently, the primary aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of Ball Possession (BP) in the 2023 Men’s RWC, differentiating between winning and losing teams. Based on previous literature, we hypothesized that winning teams would demonstrate significantly higher effectiveness in specific phases of BP initiation and development compared to losing teams.

2. Materials and methods

3. Results

Tables 2 and 3 show the frequencies and percentages of effectiveness, p-values, and effect sizes for the variables “start” and “development” of ball possession men’s national rugby teams.

At the start of the BP, the post hoc analysis revealed differences in effectiveness between winning and losing male teams. Winning male teams had higher observed than expected frequencies of effective possessions in the variables: line out plus ruck or maul (winner = 2.0196 vs. loser = −2.0196), ruck (winner = 4.3196 vs. loser = −4.3196), and own kick (winner = 2.2488 vs. loser = −2.2488). Losing male teams showed a higher-than-expected frequency of ineffective possessions in the variables restart or opposition kick (winner = −3.4621 vs. loser = 3.4621).

In the development of BP, post hoc analysis revealed differences in effectiveness between winning and losing male teams. In particular, and in winning male teams, greater observed frequencies than expected of practical possessions in the variables: backs (winner = 2.739 vs. loser = −2.739), forwards (winner = 3.955 vs. loser = −3.955), backs and forwards (winner = 4.232 vs. loser = −4232), channel 1 (winner = 4.227 vs. loser = −4.221), channel 2 (winner = 3.996 vs. loser = −3.996), one player (winner = 2.621 vs. loser = −2.2621), two players (winner = 3.102 vs. loser = −3.102), three players (winner = 3.024 vs. loser = −3.024) and four or more player (winner = 2.034 vs.loser = −2.034). Losing male teams showed higher observed than expected frequencies of ineffective possessions in the variables: backs and forwards (winner = −4.121 vs. loser = 4.121), channel 1 (winner = −3.598 vs. loser = 3.598), channel 2 (winner = −3.412 vs. loser = 3.412), player 1 (winner = −2.400 vs. loser = 2.400), three players (winner = −3.094 vs. loser = 3.904) and four or more player (winner = −2.472 vs. loser = 2.472) and ineffective possessions in the variables back (winner = −2.190 vs. loser = 2.190) and two players (winner = −3.495 vs. loser = 3.495). Fig. 1 shows the distribution of turnover probabilities based on ball possession efficiency.

Fig. 1.Distribution of turnover probability based on ball possession efficiency.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in BP effectiveness between winning and losing male teams at the 2023 Men’s Rugby World Cup (RWC). Data obtained through a notational analysis were used, utilizing a selection of variables from the instrument developed by Villarejo et al. [33]. Eleven variables related to the onset of BP and 10 variables linked to its development were analyzed. The results revealed statistically significant differences between winning and losing teams in the onset and development of BP. This focus on men’s rugby is justified by the fact that the Men’s RWC represents the highest level of competitive performance and tactical complexity in the sport, offering a reference model for elite male play.

At the onset of BP, winning male teams showed significant associations in the variables line-out maul or ruck (LMR) (p = 0.042, effect size (ES) = 0.14), ruck (R) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.08), and kick turnover from own kick (KW) (p = 0.05, ES = 0.23). Previous studies [14, 18, 22, 39] have reported better performance of winning teams in the variable R. Van Rooyen et al. [28] (2010) study on the 2007 Men’s RWC indicated that winning teams had a higher amount of R in the group stage, but a lower amount in the play-off stages. Similarly, Bunker & Spencer [22] found that winning teams performed better in the 2019 Men’s RWC.

Regarding L, studies such as Bennett et al. [24] and Hughes et al. [27] on the 2015 Men’s RWC found significant associations between the variable line-out (L) and winning teams. Although comparison with other studies is complex due to differences in data collection and analysis methodology, the findings of this study suggest that the ability to manage BP in key phases of the game (LMR, R, and KW) is a relevant contributing factor of competitive success. It is important to note that while statistically significant differences were found (p < 0.05), the effect sizes (Cramer’s V) ranged predominantly from low to moderate (0.08–0.23). This indicates that while distinct tactical patterns exist—such as winning teams’ efficiency in rucks and turnovers—these variables are contributing factors within a complex system. In elite men’s rugby, match outcomes are multifactorial, depending also on defense organization, discipline, and individual technical execution, which interact with the possession structure analyzed here. Therefore, possession effectiveness should be viewed as a significant but not solitary determinant of success.

Post hoc analysis revealed that winning male teams recorded a significantly higher frequency of practical possessions in LMR (+2.02), R (+4.32), and KW (+2.25). In contrast, losing male teams had a higher frequency of ineffective possessions in the restart from opposition drop kick (OP) variable (+3.46). These results suggest that the ability to optimize BP during moments of tactical reorganization and ball recovery allows for maintaining stability in the game and generating offensive opportunities more frequently. In the development of BP, winning male teams showed significant associations with variables backs (B) (p = 0.006, ES = 0.06), forwards (F) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.09), backs and forwards (BF) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.11), channel 1 (C1) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.09), and channel 2 (C2) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.13). Previous research has reported that the effectiveness of BP is closely related to the ability to involve both B and F players in building offensive play [41]. In high-level competitions, successful teams tend to evenly distribute BP among different playing positions, optimizing progression and generating scoring opportunities [17, 42, 43]. Although the effect size in most comparisons was low to moderate, the data suggest that winning teams structured more effective possessions through the coordinated use of players and attacks in specific areas of the field (channel 1 and channel 2). This finding is consistent with previous research demonstrating the relationship between game continuity and improved competitive performance [10, 41].

Post hoc analysis indicated that winning male teams had significantly higher frequencies of efficient possessions in B (+2.739), F (+3.955), BF (+4.232), C1 (+4.227), and C2 (+3.996), as well as possessions with one (+2.621), two (+3.102), three (+3.024), and four or more players (+2.034). In contrast, losing male teams had higher frequencies of inefficient possessions in BF (+4.121), C1 (+3.598), C2 (+3.412), one player (+2.400), three players (+3.904), and four or more players (+2.472), as well as inefficient possessions in B (+2.190) and two players (+3.495). These results reinforce the importance of strategic ball possession management in competitive performance Guerrero et al. [44]. The higher frequency of effective possession observed in winning teams suggests a link to improved offensive continuity in the game. The coordinated participation of multiple players could favor a greater generation of attacking options [45]. In contrast, the difficulties of losing male teams in managing ball possessions, especially during moments of offensive reorganization, indicate the need for training strategies focused on improving attack transition and consolidation [46].

The results of the logistic regression analysis show a significant association between effectiveness and the probability of losing the match. In particular, the estimated marginal means plot shows a progressive increase in the probability of losing the match as transition effectiveness decreases. Possessions classified as ineffective have the highest probability of losing (0.537), followed by those classified as ineffective (0.520), while effective possessions have the lowest probability of losing (0.453). This trend suggests that productive BP significantly reduces the risk of losing the match, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the importance of BP quality [17].

Although the model presents a low pseudo R² coefficient of determination (0.00616), indicating low explained variability, the statistical significance of the effect of BP effectiveness (p < 0.001) suggests that this factor is associated with the match outcome. In this sense, the findings highlight the need to optimize the different ways of obtaining and utilizing BP, as it may contribute to optimizing the team’s performance.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed differences in ball possession effectiveness between winning and losing male teams at the 2023 Men’s Rugby World Cup (RWC), using a rigorous observational and statistical approach. The results revealed significant differences in the initiation and development of possession, highlighting the importance of strategic management and quality of possession in competitive performance. Winning male teams demonstrated greater effectiveness in key phases of play such as LMR, R, and KW, and a greater ability to coordinate offensive play in the development of possession. These findings suggest that the ability to optimize possession at critical moments of the game and versatility in attack are determining factors for success in elite men’s rugby. This study contributes to scientific knowledge on men’s rugby performance by providing empirical evidence on the importance of ball possession effectiveness at the 2023 Men’s RWC. The findings have practical implications for male rugby coaches and players and open new avenues of research to better understand game dynamics and optimize competitive performance.

Abbreviations

BP, ball possession; RWC, Rugby World Cup; LMR, line-out maul or ruck; R, ruck; KW, Kick turnover from own kick; OP, restart from opposition drop kick; B, backs; F, forwards; BF, backs and forwards; C1, channel 1; C2, channel 2; C3, channel 3; 1P, one player; 2P, two players; 3P, three players; ≥4P, four or more players; S, scrum; ST, scrum turnover; L, line-out; LT, Line-out turnover; RT, ruck turnover; BT, breakpoint turnover; KP, Kick turnover from opposition; OW, Restart from own drop kick; ES, effect size; p, p-value; R², coefficient of determination.

Availability of data and materials

The data confirming the results obtained are available through the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

DHVG—designed the research study and developed the introduction; prepared the discussion and conclusions. DHVG, CNM and JPO—conducted the methodology. DHVG and JPO—performed the data analysis and obtained the results. DHVG, and JPO—wrote and prepared the manuscript. DHVG, BABP, CNM and JPO—contributed to the revision and editing of the final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Since this study retrospectively analyzed publicly available competition data, the requirement for ethical approval and informed consent was waived by University of Murcia.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.