Springboks v Wallabies - Sunday 2 October 1am AEST - Loftus Versfeld

[Train Without a Station]

QH,

On Genia. I thought he was past it last year and wrote him off but he's been almost our best now so he's proven my amateur opinion wrong.

On goal kicking I'm not suggesting Quade is a better goal kicker. I in fact wouldn't say Quade is a great goal kicker. But looking at the period of the last 4 years when both were consistently used as first choice goal kicking options when they played across Super and Test Rugby, Quade is only 3% inferior and I don't think that:

A) kicking at 75% over multiple seasons makes you good enough to be selected on goal kicking. Especially when your range is 43m;
B) that a 3% superiority to the next option if they are in the team warrants selection for your goal kicking.

With regards to 45 degree running. I get sick of this trotted our rhetoric. I watched on the weekend. Genia did it. Cooper did it. Foley did it.

All playmakers that were looking for a runner drifted when the forwards were not giving them front football. Simply because they were trying to avoid dying with the ball before it got to the planned target and had they not, they would have been tackled before then.

Much like when Beale and Giteau did it and were criticised. 85 was never by choice. It was by necessity when they had neither time nor space on receipt of the ball.

I agree it was probably Quade's worst game of the year. It was probably his best running returns in a long time but really didn't put outside players away enough.

 

[Quick Hands]

With regards to 45 degree running. I get sick of this trotted our rhetoric. I watched on the weekend. Genia did it. Cooper did it. Foley did it.

Other than this bit, I think that we may be in agreement.

You'll note that I didn't say "45 degree running", I said "running 45 degrees backwards (i.e. towards his own goal line) AND throwing forward passes. It's something that he only does when he isn't on song.

I didn't notice Foley or Genia throwing forward passes on Saturday night while running 45 degrees back towards his own goal line. I was deliberately precise in the observation.

This illustrates why I have refrained from making any comment on Quade or the Quade v Foley argument for a year or more. Any criticism of Quade immediately brings an emotional response from his partisans, who seem to take any criticism of him as a personal affront.

 

[PaarlBok]

Like the Springboks, the Wallabies are on the wrong path selecting chicken runners. You got your NRC, get the youngsters.

 

[Gnostic]

IF Foley is only making the cut due to goal kicking I have to ask why. If you select a bloke because he can kick from 65m why isn't he good enough to kick from everywhere?

Its no secret that I believe the two playmaker system compromises other aspects of the backline. It doesn't offer anything in attack that a genuine attacling side like the ABs and even the Argies do better with a single "playmaker". Why not just let Hodge take all the kicks and play one of QC (Quade Cooper) or Foley. I honestly don't give a shit which.

 

[cyclopath]

IF Foley is only making the cut due to goal kicking I have to ask why. If you select a bloke because he can kick from 65m why isn't he good enough to kick from everywhere?

Its no secret that I believe the two playmaker system compromises other aspects of the backline. It doesn't offer anything in attack that a genuine attacling side like the ABs and even the Argies do better with a single "playmaker". Why not just let Hodge take all the kicks and play one of QC (Quade Cooper) or Foley. I honestly don't give a shit which.

Maybe chose the wrong game after which to ask that question?
But, in principle, I agree. Except for the bit about the Argies attacking better through the backs with one playmaker. Their great half against the ABs mainly involved loose forwards et al running close to the ruck. Hardly awesome playmaker stuff, just some smart tactics largely using big ball runners. Which the ABs then snuffed. I'd contest the idea that any top tier team, apart from NZ, demonstrates great, cohesive attacking back play currently. And a lot of theirs is across the whole team, not just Beaugan Barrett being clever.

 

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements – Springboks v Wallabies - Pretoria

A disappointing loss in Pretoria with The Wallabies having all of the Possession (55%), Territory (60%) and ball carries (112 for 480m. Boks 92 for 332m) yet unable to get the points when needed. The Wallabies scored their last points at the 13 minute mark.

The Wallabies were out-rucked by the Boks. Boks won 97% of their rucks (58/60) against the Wallabies 91% (80/88). The Wallabies were too often too late and/or ineffective – too often just missing the cleanout. I struggle to comprehend how the blatant problem of lack of timely support for the Wallabies ball carriers has not been addressed. A lone ball carrier has little chance against a capable, committed and co-ordinated defensive line.

Match officials continue to allow too much unlawful activity around the ruck area. This includes: tackling or holding players without the ball, running interference, obstruction or simply loitering on both sides of the breakdown. Players involved rarely engage in the ruck yet prevent or impede support players actually joining the ruck. Some players have turned this into an art-form. The game would benefit from these offences being penalised.

I’m interested in what other G&Gaggers get from these stats and how they support or otherwise their observations from the Test.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective – but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

1. 86% of the Wallabies Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs) were in support of their ball carriers.
2. In the 1st half the bulk of Wallabies Defense Ruck Involvements (DRIs), aimed at putting pressure on the Boks ball carriers, were made by McMahon (6) and Hooper (4). Hooper had only 1 DRI in the 2nd half. Fardy (3) provided most DRIs in the 2nd half.
3. Both Hooper and McMahon earned 1TOW from their efforts.
4. By contrast, 28% of the Boks TRIs were in placing the Wallabies ball carriers under pressure.
5. Big efforts by Louw (3TOW) and Strauss (2TOW) with strong support from Whiteley and bench Props. Louw made 14% of his team’s TRIs and 21% of his team’s DRI’s.
6. Backs – Wallabies: Foley – 11T (9A/2D); Folau – 9T (8A/1D); Kerevi - 8T (4A/4D).
7. Backs – Boks: de Jongh – 14T (10A/4D); Lambie – 10T (8A/2D)

Ruck Involvements over Time

1. The Wallabies were unable to sustain the work rate and Ruck Involvements of their opening 20 minutes.
2. Significant lift in work rate by Hooper and Coleman after McMahon was replaced at half time.

Some additional comments and data below.

 

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements - Additional Comments

Both teams showed a similar distribution of TRIs across the main player groups.

The Wallabies Front and Back Rows were most involved in supporting their team's ball carriers.

The Boks' Front Row (particularly Strauss and Bench Props) were very involved in disrupting the Wallabies ball carriers/possession.

The Wallabies Front Row was barely involved in Defence Rucks.

The Wallabies Back Row was most involved in Defence Rucks.

The Boks averaged 2.4 players per Attack Ruck; the Wallabies 2.5.
This was about the same level of involvement by Aust Super Rugby teams in 2016.

The difference is mostly in the higher single player support of their ball carriers.

Both teams average only 0.6 players per Defence Ruck.
Aust Super Rugby in 2016 averaged 0.7-0.8 players/DR - with some games as high as 1.3.

The Boks stand-off % is similar to the Brisbane Test (60%).
The Wallabies stand-off is much higher than the Brisbane Test (32%).

Note: David Pocock has averaged 19 DRIs per 80 minutes in the TRC 2016.
The Wallabies have nobody in the current squad capable of this level of DRIs.
(Other TRC 2016 averages: Fardy 11; McCalman & McMahon 10, Hooper 8)

The Boks earned 10TOW from their 56 DRIs; the Wallabies 6TOW from their 35 DRIs.

The Boks were prepared to commit more players to the breakdown - particularly when the ruck was in the Wallabies "Red" zone.

 

[Viking]

I honestly don't know who is the better kicker and I'm not sure that it's a question which can be answered by the available statistics. People's views on this are often coloured by emotion.

I'd say that both of them are capable of match winning goal kicking performances and both are also capable of really poor kicking displays.

I think the majority, including myself would say it is clear Foley is the better kicker within the 40m mark.

But being the best kicker in a poor bunch isn't much to rave about. And being the best by the slightest of margin's certainly diminishes it's value.

 

[Joe Blow]

First thing noticed from those ruck stats is that we really missed Pocock big time. That's why Fardy must come in at 6.

 

[Viking]

First thing noticed from those ruck stats is that we really missed Pocock big time. That's why Fardy must come in at 6.

I thought Hooper should/would switch his game to be more a traditional seven and hit more defensive rucks. He's pretty good at turnovers despite what many imply on this forum.

However it looked like McMahon was the one hitting defensive rucks - which I think is strange, Why McMahon and not Hooper? McMahon's strength isn't being a pest at the breakdown so why is he filling Poey's role instead of Hooper who is more capable?

Hooper should have switched to a more traditional seven role and McMahon should have played more of a traditional 8 role. This was such a good chance for the back-row to simplify their roles and go back to tradition but they didn't, instead Hooper played the same and McMahon tried to replicate Poey.

I thought the backrow with the Pooper was imbalanced but it seems it's even more imbalanced now that Poey it out.

 

[PaarlBok]

Forcefan

Match officials continue to allow too much unlawful activity around the ruck area. This includes: tackling or holding players without the ball, running interference, obstruction or simply loitering on both sides of the breakdown. Players involved rarely engage in the ruck yet prevent or impede support players actually joining the ruck. Some players have turned this into an art-form. The game would benefit from these offences being penalised.

I’m interested in what other G&Gaggers get from these stats and how they support or otherwise their observations from the Test.

Are you blaming the ref? Did he allow only Springboks to be unlawful around the rucks?

 

[ForceFan]

Forcefan
Are you blaming the ref? Did he allow only Springboks to be unlawful around the rucks?

Not just a problem with the Boks but a growing trend in International Rugby which is not being stamped out.

The Wallabies are starting to fall into the trap as well as very few are getting pinged.

It's also happening at all levels of rugby as it's being condoned at Test level.

 

[Rugbybloke123]

LEROY HOUSTON CALLED INTO THE WALLABIES SQUAD ! talk about a bolter

 

[Dan54]

Like the Springboks, the Wallabies are on the wrong path selecting chicken runners. You got your NRC, get the youngsters.

I agree PB, isn't it strange the teams ranked 1 and 2 don't select overseas players. I can understand why some like the idea, and I know Genia has been bloody good, but overall I don't really think it a good idea.

 

[liquor box]

Forum myths have a strange way of becoming accepted as fact, Foley and Cooper are not equivalent in goal kicking statistics

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/w...s/news-story/17c6e3f0ed4398286beaec868485741e

So there is a 12 percent difference in Test matches on that website.

If a kicker has 5 attempts per game then this makes Foley only one goal (approximately) 7.84 goals to 6.67 better every two games (10 kicks).

If these are penalties then this is only 1.5 points per game and f t was a conversion only 1 point per game.

I think that Cooper creates more than 1.5 points per game in general play over what Foley does so the percentage is not that important.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Quade v Foley in Kicking - only a piece of flyshit between them.

More important is Folau's poor form. Should he be playing 13 and DHP at 15.

Should Hooper be playing as a traditional 7 now that Poey isn't there to support him.

Should Hodge have a crack at 12 ?

Suspect we will see more of the same against the Argies and it may not be pretty

 

[Viking]

Quade v Foley in Kicking - only a piece of flyshit between them.

More important is Folau's poor form. Should he be playing 13 and DHP at 15.

Nah. Kerevi is getting better every game and Kuridrani is looking solid from the bench. Decision making seems to be Folau's issue and that won't get better at 13, in fact it will probably be harder for him. Rather move Folau to wing or bench. DHP deserves a shot at 15 after last game.

Should Hooper be playing as a traditional 7 now that Poey isn't there to support him.

Yes. Absolutely. He is a pest at breakdowns when he wants to be, the next best man to fill that role (now that Gill is gone). Timani will now fill a traditional 8 role so for the balance of the backrow it's a good idea.

Should Hodge have a crack at 12 ?

Maybe. I like him on the wing for now, but I'd rather him at 12 then Foley. My pecking order would be Kerevi, Hodge, then Foley. As I have doubts over Hodge's distributions skills, but Kerevi has been good in that area.

Suspect we will see more of the same against the Argies and it may not be pretty

 

[dru]

Neither team currently ranked 1 and 2 have depth problems.

 

[dru]

This illustrates why I have refrained from making any comment on Quade or the Quade v Foley argument for a year or more. Any criticism of Quade immediately brings an emotional response from his partisans, who seem to take any criticism of him as a personal affront.

He suffers partisan criticsm too.

I thought both Foley and Quade played the role well. Players are starting to look for opportunity off them. The communication/timing/positional play was off though. Sometimes a player on a break was unsupported. Other times the inside hip player over-ran the piece, and yes sometimes Quade then overplayed with a forward pass.

I've re-watched the game twice now. The scrum and line-out losses continue to irk me. But they are not why we lost. We lost due to an inability to break through inside our 22. Which is what the double-10 is there for. Its working better, but the support play combination with the playmakers has room for improvement. Quade shares that responsibility, but its not his alone.

Genia had less than his best night (still great) and this may have restrained the pigs go forward. Which complicated matters for the playmakers as we got closer to the line.

The Bok defense can take a bow. Really effective in this game when their backs were against the wall.

 

[A mutterer]

calls for folau into 13 i think are really badly misplaced at this stage. why reward him for a form slump?

kerevi is playing his heart out, and his enthusiasm can be seen every time the forwards do something well - he is sprinting over to congratulate the guys. he looks way more energetic that both kuirdrani and folau at the moment.