Collective effectiveness in the XV de France: selections and time matter

Abstract

The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of selections and shared selections in the rugby union. Players' names, positions, and number of selections were collected for all XV de France's games (1906-2014). Every team's percentage of renewal of workforce was calculated for backs and forwards. During the 1987-2014 period, all second row forwards (locks), halfbacks, and centres' shared selections (number of times when two players have competed together) were recreated. The Best vs. Rest method was applied to these remodelled dyads. They were analysed and compared with surrounding teammates as well as opponents. Head coaches similarly change their workforce for upcoming matches after winning or losing (around 30%), but losing teams renew significantly more positions in their line-ups. The recreated halfbacks, locks, and centres reveal a common pattern. Whether victorious or not, the 'renewed couples' victory percentage will congregate towards the XV de France's victory percentage. For all the best recreated couples, the cumulated number of selections for forwards' is always higher than the ones part of less efficient teams: 231.3 ± 80 vs. 212.9 ± 91 selections for locks' teammates (Effect sizes (ES) small, possibly positive, 54.8%). In best recreated couples, number 8's are significantly more experienced than their counterparts in less efficient pairs (ES small, likely positive, 76.3%). The XV de France's collective effectiveness relies on a balance between stability and workforce renewal, which allows the building of specific position interactions and builds on experimented forwards packs. Selections and shared selections are serious collective performance parameters associated with performance.

Quantifying Collective Performance in Rugby Union

“…Impact of player turnover rate on results has also been analyzed in rugby union and football. A high rate of turnover in the French national rugby team between two consecutive games is associated with the loss of the game (Sedeaud et al, 2017). Similar results have been found in football by Carling et al (2015).…”

“…Its impact on rugby union game results was assessed. Previous work introduced the idea that shared selections are highly involved in rugby union teams' performance and that time is needed to let collective effectiveness emerge (Sedeaud et al, 2017). Sedeaud et al concentrated their investigations on shared experiences between pairs of players (halfbacks, locks, or centers).…”

“…Many studies have shown the importance of investigating cohesion and collective efficacy factors as key performance indicators in team sports (Heuzé et al, 2006;Bourbousson et al, 2010;Marcos et al, 2010;Leo et al, 2013;Fransen et al, 2015;Sedeaud et al, 2017). In rugby union, no significant effort can be performed without the help and cooperation of every player.…”

“…Moreover, Leo et al (2013) stated that players with higher cohesion and collective efficacy profiles belonged to the best teams. Generating synergy through a coordinated effort which allows each member to maximize their strengths and minimize their weakness (Jain, 2009) is a long-term process (Sedeaud et al, 2017). It requires coordination based on shared knowledge and action (Eccles and Tenenbaum, 2004) that teammates can only achieve through time spent together and traditional methods of team-building (Shearer, 2015).…”

“…Sedeaud et al (2012) showed that teams which include forwards with previous World Cup experience perform better. Moreover, specific analysis on collective effectiveness of French national rugby team showed that more experienced forwards surround the best halfbacks, locks and centers (Sedeaud et al, 2017). Impact of player turnover rate on results has also been analyzed in rugby union and football.…”