The Stormers' Super rugby season came to an anti-climactic end on Saturday, when they were bundled out of the tournament by the Brumbies in their home play-off match. The semi-finals will now both feature Australia vs New Zealand clashes, with many declaring this a worrying omen for our Rugby World Cup chances.Considering that, without the conference system, the best South African side would have placed seventh on the table and we would have had no play-off representation at all, you'd be hard-pressed not to admit to some concern.It has been particularly bad judged against New Zealand opposition. The Lions were the only South African team to win a match in New Zealand. Our other nine visits to New Zealand venues ended with defeats. In contrast, Kiwi teams won five of their 10 matches when visiting our shores.If points were awarded as in the Premier League, the standings would have had New Zealand on 42 points, South Africa 21.Last year, it was New Zealand 35, South Africa 23, thanks to our seven wins, two draws and 11 defeats.Given that we expect New Zealand to be the main barrier between ourselves and the Webb Ellis Cup (a false expectation, based on what I have seen of how England are applying innovation and expertise to their rugby), this could indeed be taken as a sign of impending rugby apocalypse, though I would emphasise that Super rugby performance is by no means a perfect predictor of international success.On the other hand, I saw analysis last week that offered a positive spin on our collective 2015 Super rugby performance. It argued that 2015 was an improvement, because we won 19 matches against international opponents, compared to only 16 in 2014.It also described how in the absence of bonus points, two South African teams would have featured in the top six, with the Stormers second overall going into their final match against the Sharks.These different perspectives offer a classic illustration of the "lies, damned lies and statistics" saying, popularised by author Mark Twain to describe the persuasive, but often misleading, power of numbers. In this instance, you would need to explore or "mine" the data to find its real meaning, and even then your inherent biases or "agendas" will distort how you interpret it.It does not take a genius, in this instance, to work out that the discrepancy exists because of our performances against Australian teams.In 2015, we were worse against the Kiwis, but better against the Aussies, winning 13 of 20 matches against them.In 2014, we won only nine, and that explains the swing between the "Woe to South African rugby" and the "Don't despair, things are looking better" camps.If you value only our comparative record against New Zealand sides, or if you want a picture of doom, then you simply leave those inconvenient (or woefully weak) Aussies out of your equation.If you want a more global view, and like your glass half full, you make sure to include them.Basically, you choose a side, and pick the numbers that back you up. As in the art of story-telling, it is what you leave out that counts.Given how bias and interpretation can distort basic statistics like these, my own perspective is that they are not worth getting hung up on. Our scoreboard performances are indicative of what I suspect are some serious issues underpinning our current rugby health, and so what should be done is a far more detailed investigation that looks not at the outcome, but rather the behaviours that produce them.For instance, if we could collectively agree on 10 variables that are of value (set piece conversion percentage, missed tackles, possession to points scoring ratio, and so forth), then track these over the years and benchmark them against what opposition teams are doing, we would have a far better idea of our true standing.Even better, if we shared an ideology for how to play the game, then this method would even allow competing franchises to be evaluated as collaborators, but that is a dream in our current system.However full or empty your glass, Heyneke Meyer has a daunting task to create a "whole" that absolutely must be greater than the sum of its parts...