Wallabies v Springboks - Suncorp, Brisbane, 10th September 2016

[tragic]

I think that's actually selling him a bit short. He's got the physicality of Mortlock, but the silky skills of Horan. The boot of Chris Latham, defence of Ant Fainga'a. The intellect of Einstein, the looks of Daniel Craig.

He shouldn't just be the Wallaby 12, he should be Prime Minister.
.

Which country do you live in?
None of that would qualify him for PM.
He needs a head like a robbers dog for a start.

 

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements - Wallabies v Boks - Brisbane

Here's the numbers. A very different distribution from the games against the ABs. Not a lot of comments due to time constraints but I'm interested in comments from what others may see in them.


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. The Wallabies won 90% (76/84) of their own rucks.Clearly the game plan was for mostly Pocock and Hooper to put pressure on the Boks’ ball carriers. Generally they were ineffective as they were essentially fighting lone-hands. Both players still earned 2 TOW.
2. Not often that one player, Pocock, has 20% of his team’s Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs) and 32% of Defence Ruck Involvements (DRIs). Pocock was involved in ~34% of the total rucks of both teams.
3. 3 players (Pocock, Hooper and Slipper) had 56% of the team’s DRIs
4. The Wallabies starting Front Rowers continue to have a low level of breakdown involvement. Much improvement from off the bench.
5. Wallabies Locks showed strong support of the team’s ball carriers. Not Arnold’s strongest effort.

1. The Boks won 95% (73/77) of their own rucks.
2. 3 players (Whitely, Strauss and Louw) had 51% of their team’s DRIs.
3. Strauss showed how Hookers can be involved at the breakdown. 1TOW.

Ruck Involvements over Time

1. The Wallabies showed a higher level of involvement at the breakdown than their Bok counterparts. Intensity lifted for both teams in the 2nd half.
2. Significant lift from Pocock and Coleman, to lesser extent Hooper and Douglas, when Boks were down to 14 players early in the 2nd half. Boks managed to hold Wallabies to the single PG during this period.
3. Pocock maintained his high level of involvements until replaced with 10 minutes remaining. His 30 Total Ruck Involvements during the 40-70 minute period was more than any full-game player.
4. Wallabies replacement Front Rowers quickly got into the tempo of the game.

More discussion in next post due to image constraints.

 

[mark_s]

I thought Nigel had a pretty good game. He was decisive, very clear with his decisions and his judgement is normally pretty good. He managed the temperaments of the players well when he saw things escalating. The only decision that I thought was dubious was the Sio one - but I didn't think it was a shocker either. I didn't have any real issue with the Habana decision, Owens felt he had done enough to win a turnover so called it that way.

I don't want rugby to go down the same path as rugby league where the minutiae of decisions are reviewed and criticised heavily. Little things suddenly get blown out of all proportion when there is so much other judgement in the game.

 

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements - Wallabies v Boks - Brisbane (Cont)

1. Similar distribution of ruck involvements across the main player groups.
2. Boks Front Rowers more involved than Wallabies – mainly due to efforts of Strauss.

1. The Wallabies appeared ineffective in placing the Boks ball carriers under pressure mostly due to the lack of involvement by our Tight 5.
2. Pocock and Hooper outmuscled their Boks counterparts with support of the Wallabies Backs.

1. Wallabies averaged slightly more (2.4) players supporting their ball carriers than the Boks (2.2).
2. Significantly more 3 & 4 player involvements by the Wallabies to counter bulk being applied by the Boks.

1. Boks showed a preference to maintaining their line of defence and stood off more (60%) defence rucks than the Wallabies (42%).
2. Boks averaged only 0.6 players per Defence Ruck. Wallabies averaged 0.8 players per Defence Ruck (SR2016 average for Aussie teams).
3. The single-player defence ruck numbers show the lone-hand work by Pocock.

 

[Scrubber2050]

ForceFan
Thanks for those stats - excellent

Do you have run metres as well ?

 

[No4918]

David Pocock with 1 involvement in the last 10. Wallabies just can't carry a player that won't go the 80.

 

[ForceFan]

ForceFan
Thanks for those stats - excellent

Do you have run metres as well ?

G'day Scrubber
You can get these from the ESPN site which I reckon are the most accurate.
they also agree with the stats on the Vodacom phone app.

Speaking for the Forwards.

• Pocock at 11 carries for 18m had almost double the carry m of the Wallabies next - Hooper with 8 carries for 10m.
• The Boks Forwards (59 carries for 130m) were used more and were more effective than the Wallabies Forwards (47 carries for 64m).

This lack of involvement by the Wallabies Forwards (especially the Tight-5) - not only in ball carries but generally around the park seems to have become a feature of Australian rugby.
It's what makes new players such as Tom Robertson so exciting.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

David Pocock with 1 involvement in the last 10. Wallabies just can't carry a player that won't go the 80.

pretty sure he was substituted at ~71 mins ?

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think that's actually selling him a bit short. He's got the physicality of Mortlock, but the silky skills of Horan. The boot of Chris Latham, defence of Ant Fainga'a. The intellect of Einstein, the looks of Daniel Craig.

He shouldn't just be the Wallaby 12, he should be Prime Minister.
.

I hear he's got the moves like Jagger as well...

 

[Hawko]

pretty sure he was substituted at ~71 mins ?

Irony does not come over well on the internet.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Irony does not come over well on the internet.

we need an Irony and a sarcasm font

 

[dru]

Excellent FF (Folau Fainga'a).

Three thoughts from me:

1. No wonder Pocock seemed quiet - head down arse up for 71 mins. Incredible work.
2. 20 defensive rucks to Pocock, 10 to Hooper. I thought the idea of the Pooper was a first in tackle/hit from Hooper and Pocock second in over the ball. That doesnt seem to be working.
3. How do we get by with a near non-existant defensive ruck presence from the tight 5? Isnt that their job? Or a chunk of it anyway. Or did the Noks just not challenge the pigs much in tight?

 

[Hawko]

Just imagine if our tight five, especially our front row, applied themselves a bit harder. We might even gain some parity with the NZ team.

• Our starting front row (all three of them) got to 29 rucks in 50 minutes. Our replacement front row got to 31 rucks in 30 minutes with Slipper outstanding. In what universe wouldn't you elevate the finishers based on those stats?
• Kane Douglas, who is not a backrower, got to 29 rucks on his own. Admittedly, he played for 80, but given that our front row could reasonably expect that they would only have to play for 50, I think that they should have been looking to hit 20+ rucks each. Either their level of effort is piss poor or they have been instructed to stay out of rucks to give the backrow a chance to star.
• Moore hit 7 rucks in 56 minutes, TPN hits the same number in 25 mins. Moore gets to only three of those early, TPN gets to every one early.

Moore appears to be spending more time watching the game as captain than he is playing. That's utterly unacceptable.
Bugger all this concentration on who should be playing 12 and whether the Pooper is working or not! The biggest improvement we could get in our team would be to replace our starting front row with our finishers. Now, given that Robertson will be starting his first test next week, I would have him do that from the bench. But I would swap Moore and Sio for Slipper and TPN immediately.
The job of captain is totally over-rated in my book, I think the leadership group in the team is far more important. First requirement for the tight five in the team is to do your job in the set piece and hit rucks. Then we can look at carries and only after that should we look at the fluffy stuff.
Cheik can smooth the way by telling the media it is to help Moore freshen up after an arduous season, with an EOYT still to come and to let Moore be captain as soon as he comes on. He'll be good to go for the post match interviews.
Slipper for Sio is just a no-brainer.

 

[Twoilms]

Just imagine if our tight five, especially our front row, applied themselves a bit harder. We might even gain some parity with the NZ team.

• Our starting front row (all three of them) got to 29 rucks in 50 minutes. Our replacement front row got to 31 rucks in 30 minutes with Slipper outstanding. In what universe wouldn't you elevate the finishers based on those stats?
• Kane Douglas, who is not a backrower, got to 29 rucks on his own. Admittedly, he played for 80, but given that our front row could reasonably expect that they would only have to play for 50, I think that they should have been looking to hit 20+ rucks each. Either their level of effort is piss poor or they have been instructed to stay out of rucks to give the backrow a chance to star.
• Moore hit 7 rucks in 56 minutes, TPN hits the same number in 25 mins. Moore gets to only three of those early, TPN gets to every one early.

Moore appears to be spending more time watching the game as captain than he is playing. That's utterly unacceptable.

Bugger all this concentration on who should be playing 12 and whether the Pooper is working or not! The biggest improvement we could get in our team would be to replace our starting front row with our finishers. Now, given that Robertson will be starting his first test next week, I would have him do that from the bench. But I would swap Moore and Sio for Slipper and TPN immediately.
The job of captain is totally over-rated in my book, I think the leadership group in the team is far more important. First requirement for the tight five in the team is to do your job in the set piece and hit rucks. Then we can look at carries and only after that should we look at the fluffy stuff.
Cheik can smooth the way by telling the media it is to help Moore freshen up after an arduous season, with an EOYT still to come and to let Moore be captain as soon as he comes on. He'll be good to go for the post match interviews.
Slipper for Sio is just a no-brainer.

THANKYOU!!

I've been saying this since the World Cup last year. Moore is rubbish and has been for ages. Holding everything back. Can't captain, can't scrum and his only genuine strength over TPN, his lineout throw, has been bloody woeful anyway. I fear his slightly improved performance last match will keep him in the team. I also fear that his use has forced TPN's hand and shoved the best Australian front rower overseas.

Edit: i've also said it before but this pre-occupation with whether the pooper works or not is such a waste of time. They are both immense over the ball, both carry reasonably to very well, both tackle their asses off, both get involved in an acceptable number of rucks etc etc.

 

[Hawko]

Excellent FF (Folau Fainga'a).

Three thoughts from me:

1. No wonder Pocock seemed quiet - head down arse up for 71 mins. Incredible work.
2. 20 defensive rucks to Pocock, 10 to Hooper. I thought the idea of the Pooper was a first in tackle/hit from Hooper and Pocock second in over the ball. That doesnt seem to be working.
3. How do we get by with a near non-existant defensive ruck presence from the tight 5? Isnt that their job? Or a chunk of it anyway. Or did the Noks just not challenge the pigs much in tight?

I assume, since we were playing the Boks, that your comment is tongue in cheek. The Boks love to challenge in tight.

It was mainly the front row. Starting locks hit 49 rucks, starting front row hit 29 with one extra player.

 

[ForceFan]

Excellent FF (Folau Fainga'a).

Three thoughts from me:

1. No wonder Pocock seemed quiet - head down arse up for 71 mins. Incredible work.
Agree. Hard to see why Hooper gets the watch for 5 more tackles. About half of Pocock's ruck involvements and less ball carry. But apparently Hooper has X-Factor (a quality that is difficult to describe that makes someone very special).
2. 20 defensive rucks to Pocock, 10 to Hooper. I thought the idea of the Pooper was a first in tackle/hit from Hooper and Pocock second in over the ball. That doesn't seem to be working.
Occasionally they worked in tandem: On Defence Rucks: 2 x DP1 and MH2; 4 x MH1 and DP2. i.e. 30% of Pocock's DRIs and 60% of Hooper's DRIs. Most often they are covering separate parts of the defensive line.
3. How do we get by with a near non-existant defensive ruck presence from the tight 5? Isn't that their job? Or a chunk of it anyway. Or did the Boks just not challenge the pigs much in tight?
I've been highlighting this shortcoming for the >2 years that I've been collecting ruck stats. Our Front Row involvements tend to be about 20% of total rucks. Winning teams against us are often closer to 30% of team ruck involvements. Our props also tend to be on the lower end of the tackle count. I don't think that our Props are fit enough and for too long in Aussie Rugby - at all levels of the game - the Front Row have been expected to be involved at the set piece and seemingly little else. Our Props are often shown up by the hard work of others. e.g. Strauss in this game, Crockett, O Franks and Moody in Bled 1&2, and O Franks, D Coles, Moody and B Franks in RWC Final. The Locks story is a more complex issue. Maybe we have so few that nobody wants to see them get injured.

 

[PaarlBok]

Congrats to the Wallabie supporters with your win. I expected nothing less and thought I maybe wrong after the two tries. Anyway we are at the bottom and hope it will go better from here. The All Blacks are the big test and always bring out the best out of a Springbok. If there ever was a time to show guts , this will be it.

 

[ForceFan]

Top ruck involvements over the past 2 years.

TESTS - Highest ruck involvements:
55 - Scott Fardy - England - Syd 2016
54 – Pocock – Sth Africa - 2016
53 - Best & Heaslip for Ireland - France - RWC 2015
53 – McCaw for NZ - Sth Africa – RWC 2015
49 - Sam Carter - England - Mel 2016
47 - Pocock - Fiji – RWC 2015
45 – Hooper – Sth Africa - 2015

Super Rugby - Highest ruck involvements:
57 – Pocock – Bulls 2015 (Av 44 in 2015; Av 35 in 2016)
53 – Gill – Rebels 2016 (Gill av 38 in 2015. Av 37 in 2016)
51 - Hodgson - Highlanders - 2016 (Av 37 in 2016)
51 - Pocock - Blues – 2015
50 - Hodgson - Rebels - 2015 (Av 40 in 2015)
47 - Hooper - Rebels - 2015 (Av 28 in 2015; av 27 in 2016)

 

[bigmac]

I agree still some rawness about Kerevi like the simple things of having ball in wrong arm which if was holding in his left arm would have scored. But lot to like and with some good skills coaching to fine tune those extra things he looks the goods.

Foley made some mistakes and admit I missed the intercept that led to a try (and hence he generously got 1 point from me for MOTM). But lot more positives then negatives, as showed he is a good playmaker in the middle when in form, so I now believe behind Beale offers a genuine option at 12. Hodge needs more time. I did not seem to see what he did on attack only defence, so will watch more closely next few games.

DHP - I really like would see how he goes at his Super Rugby position of FB.

Foleys excellent goal kicking makes him valuable to the team regardless of his other failings eg flimsy defence

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

G'day
This lack of involvement by the Wallabies Forwards (especially the Tight-5) - not only in ball carries but generally around the park seems to have become a feature of Australian rugby.

Great stats and I think this statement sums it up subject to one question.
Do we Have less carries or the same number for less metres?
If the former it's a structure issue and if the latter it's a personnel issue, I reckon.
Love to see Coleman + Arnld ths week