Win at all costs? It's not what it seems!

On Saturday night, St Helens were on the ropes against Bradford. They were 4-16 down after 45 minutes. With more accurate goalkicking, it could have been 4-20. They were in a hole.

St Helens fought back and led 20-16 after 57 minutes, with Bradford reduced to 12 men courtesy of a red card. But this game was by no means won. It remained in the balance. All it would take was one chance for Bradford to to tip the scales in their favour.

On 58 minutes, St Helens get a penalty that Jackson Hastings would easily have kicked. They chose to run and their attack was snuffed out. 

They declined the chance to extent a lead to one which would mean Bradford having to score twice to win. A very difficult task with 12 men. They declined the chance to open up a lead greater than anything they had held in the match so far.

Rugby League then does what it does. The unexpected. Joe Shorrocks was sin binned, the playing numbers were equalled and Bradford scored to lead 20-22. St Helens declining an easy two points was in danger of costing them the match.

Ultimately, St Helens scored late on with a 76th minute try to win a nervy encounter.

This crystalised something that I have thought for a long time. Why do teams so often turn does easy and near-guaranteed points?

If the purpose of Rugby League matches is to win, why do teams actively do something to make that harder for themselves?

There is a perception amongst Rugby League supporters that kicking at goal is a negative tactic. Or that by kicking a penalty you are somehow saying to your opponents that you do not think you can score a try.

When you are at home, it is not unheard of for your fans (particularly when that side is expected to win) to react negatively to a decision to kick at goal. Does this play on the minds of players and coaches?

On average so far this season, a Super League side will score 3.8 tries per match (yes, I know that will vary by team and opponent and it is an imperfect measure). 

By declining an easy two points, you effectively declare your belief that you will score one of the on average 3.8 tries you will score in a match, within the next 60 seconds. It might happen. Sometimes it does. But the odds are stacked firmly against you.

And even if you do, you might score in the corner and miss the subsequent conversion. That would mean a net gain of two points if the unlikely even that you do score a try. Is it worth the risk?

You see it in other situations too. A side is 8 points down and has a kickable penalty. It is rare that they kick it. Instead, they go for the try.

The logical option is to kick the penalty so that you need a converted try to level the game. So often, clubs decide to take the harder route of trying to score two tries. It belies logic and reason.

Of course, sometimes the right call is to run. If you are 12 points down with 10 minutes to go, then kicking a penalty isn't going to get you very far as you waste a minute of game play and still need two tries.

It is funny what emotion can do. It can make you do illogical things. It is human nature to be concerned of the perceptions that others have of you. I suspect many who say that they don't are not being entirely truthful with themselves.

In a Rugby League sense, the perception of being 'negative' or 'boring' (in the context of turning down easy penalty goals) even overrides that inherent desire that sportspeople have to win.

We think that sportspeople have a 'win at all costs' mentality. When you dig a little deeper, that may not be as accurate as we think. On occasions, the negative connotations of taking logical decisions still overrides.