I decided to analyse some of the key stats from both the Wallabies 1st test against the Eye-ties and the match against the French. I used these two tests as my sample as the Wallaby team was largely the same, with some positional tweaks.
It produced some results that might point to how the Wallabies plan to go about playing in the rain and mud of Nu Zulund as opposed to the dry tracks of Seth Efrika
What I found most interesting was the difference in the meters gained from kicks and from which positions these kicks were made. It was fairly clear from watching the two games that the tactical kicking against the French was no-where near as accurate as it was against the Italians.
Another area of the game that was very different was that of how the Wallabies ran the ball. There was no great difference in the total meters gained from runs, but there was significant difference as to areas the gains were made between the two games.
Kicking comparison.
|
Italy 1st test |
Stat |
France |
|
36 |
Total kicks |
27 |
|
1404 |
Meters gained |
974 |
|
39 |
Metres gained per kick |
36 |
|
1 |
Halfback Kicks |
3 |
|
11 |
Five-Eighth Kicks |
15 |
|
33% |
% of total kicks from halves |
67% |
What strikes you is the difference in the total meters gained from kicks, although the average meters per kick are fairly similar. The Wallabies kicked more in the first Italian game but the % of kicks that were made by either the halfback or fly-half are well down in comparison to the French game.
These differences can be explained to some extent by the conditions the two tests were played in. The conditions for the first test in Canberra were freezing and very slippery, not too dissimilar to NZ perhaps, while the game in Sydney was played in far better conditions, more like the conditions in the Republic.
One reason that may not be so obvious is that of the choice of fullback’s for each test. JO’C played in Canberra and kicked 8 times while AAC played in Sydney and only kicked twice.
Coincidence? When you look at the running stats, I think not.
Running comparison
|
Italy 1st test |
|
France |
||||||
|
Runs |
Mtrs |
%of runs |
% mtr gained |
Stat |
Runs |
Mtrs |
%of runs |
% mtr gained |
|
83 |
504 |
|
|
Total |
82 |
518 |
|
|
|
33 |
261 |
40% |
52% |
Runs Open |
36 |
339 |
44% |
65% |
|
22 |
85 |
27% |
17% |
Runs Tight |
18 |
63 |
22% |
12% |
|
7 |
10 |
8% |
2% |
Pick Drive |
1 |
0 |
1% |
0% |
|
8 |
66 |
10% |
13% |
Kick Returns |
14 |
60 |
17% |
12% |
|
2 |
3 |
2% |
1% |
Rolling Maul |
3 |
13 |
4% |
3% |
|
5 |
20 |
6% |
4% |
Halfback Runs |
5 |
10 |
6% |
2% |
|
6 |
59 |
7% |
12% |
Five-Eighth Runs |
5 |
33 |
6% |
6% |
Again looking at the totals between the two games are remarkably similar but there are significant differences as to where the meters were made.
In the Italian game there was far more going on around the ruck area, particularly when you look at the gains Burgo and Gits made. They still tried to run the same amount in the French game, but the returns simply weren’t there and, as previously discussed, they kicked more.
Watching the AB’s this year, I have been surprised by the amount of ground they have given away around the ruck whereas the Saffers have looked far more organised in close. The Wallabies tried to pick and drive 7 times in Canberra when ball handling was difficult, but in the drier conditions and better opposition a week later, they only attempted it once.
Against the French the Wallabies gained most of their meters in open field running. When you look at the % difference between the two games, the running game of the Wallabies in Sydney was superior. This wider running will come in handy against the South African centres that have seemed to struggle defensively at times this year.
Back to JO’C and AAC.
Looking at the kick return stats, they are pretty much inversely proportionate to the kicking stats in that JO’C seems to kick the ball whereas AAC seems to run it. Sure, there is some skewing because of the wingers, but the general trend is there.
The total metres gained from runs from fullback shows there was more ground made against the Italians than the French but I put this down to the better defence of the French that the Italians.
So what does this mean?
This analysis shows the Wallabies are capable, and comfortable, of playing two different styles of game. I am of the opinion that the game plans for each test were based on the conditions the games would be played in, rather than the opposition.
The stats show the different game styles that can be played by the Wallabies and how these styles can be further enhanced by using either JO’C or AAC at fullback. Clearly JO’C’s monster boot will come in handy at a soggy Eden Park for instance. The Kiwi wingers have a limited to non-existent kicking game so JO’C will be able to apply a fair amount of pressure to the All Black back three and have them trying to run out of trouble.
AAC’s running game will be better suited to the bombs that will no doubt rain down on the Wallabies at the bone dry Loftus for example. It was great to see how Lion’s fullback, Rob Kearney, exposed the Bokkies terrible kick-chase game by running the footy rather than kicking it, so I expect AAC to be the ‘fullback de jour’ come Saffer time.
It was only a few years ago that Wallabies were no chance as soon as it rained or the conditions were damp. They were one trick ponies who were not comfortable playing anything other than “recycle-rugby” which didn’t suit playing always suit the conditions. One only has to cast your mind back to the stupidity of training with the sprinklers on, or dipping the ball in a bucket of water then running the same old moves and patterns to confirm this.
Not now it seems. Indeed when you consider the defensive capabilities the Wallabies now have, it’s looking like a pretty good winter.
Tags: tri-nations
Interesting idea that we will see AAC and JOC alternate to suit the conditions. Maybe sth similar with the loosies, at least until we have both Elsom and Palu back on deck?
I agree it is looking like a tasty winter indeed now that we have seen the South Africans implode so successfully. And NZ don’t look any better than we thought they would.
I think AAC will start both o/seas tests with JOC maybe coming off the bench for him. I say maybe because he may well be used off the bench at No. 12.
Some interesting stats in the main article though.
tbh im not quite sure about the Wallabies…SA look too good esp coming off a good run with the Lions. The ABs are always underestimated by the media to be “the worst team EVER” and they always, ALWAYS come up with something that makes them look better then the year before! And the Wallabies are still so, so for me! Once they compete and really start challenging and winning test matches, i might think otherwise, but until then…im still not convinced of how much they can achieve!
Without Carter’s magic at 5/8, itll be a tight one. The saffas do look on fire on the back of their lions series win, but they were untested world champions this time last year, and thought theyd put it over the aussies in perth in the first 3n game. we put the fuckin bash on that idea
I am saddend by these comments becouse they are hevialy based on the fullbacks neither are world class although jo’c may be one day also the ab’s have mils.
The AB’s may have Mils but their lack of kicking wingers was exposed by the Italians who were able to dominate field position.
The All Blacks were simply not able to get out of their own territory and against a better opponent would have paid the price.
The French were also able to show the how the AB’s can be exposed by accurate kicking.
The Wallabies have two legitimate options at fullback who have shown they can play totally different styles of game. The AB’s, don’t have this luxury
this may be true but when siti and joe run you boys ragged I will be laughing alsowe may not have the kicking skills but around the ruck our half backs e.d. piri weepu jimmy cowan are only beaten by furie du preez and any of our 5-8s bar maa nonu have very good kicking games.
P.S. the whole point of the mute above was that australia only have one kicking full back.
Hate to say i told you so