To me, the statistic says we are working longer, not harder. To be working harder, the statistic would be about output, results, even job satisfaction; not about how long we sit at our desks.

As a freelancer, I am always conscious about how I am valued. I have learnt that my value is assessed first and foremost by whether I get the job done. How long I will take, or how much I will charge is a secondary issue. If I do the job well, but take longer to do it than is really necessary just makes me more expensive, not better. Who do you know that would pay for unnecessary hours, or for poor quality?

And yet, that is what many employers do. They pay workers to be at their desks, measuring their contribution in time and cost, not quality. This charade is also played by employees, who are willing to put in extra time at work for free, perhaps hoping that this show of commitment secures their place in the company.

Do you value each employee by their cost, by how much time they spend at work, or by what they do for you?

Talking this over at half time, the difference seemed to come down to two points, France had had two lucky breaks, and seemed to be passing the ball out of the tackle more than Wales. And yet neither of these were included in the statistics shown on TV.

If lucky breaks can change the result of a game, then they should be counted and analysed. Do lucky breaks just happen? Or can a team prepare and train to spot them and take advantage of them?

In business, do we look at the statistics that really tell us what is going on? The amount of cash in the bank, or profit, are easy to measure and give us one indication of how we are doing, but they do not explain why the result is what it is, or whether it is better or worse than reasonably expected.

Whether as a Finance Director, or the coach of a national rugby team, I always look for the information and data that tells me what is really going on. Traditional statistics tell one story, but is it the most useful one?