WARATAHS V BRUMBIES
The Brumbies have won both of these local derbies in 2016.
Any analysis of the 2 games shows that the stats (and not just Ruck Involvements) were almost a complete reversal of the game in Canberra but the final scoreline was about the same.
In Round 2 the Brumbies had 62% Possession and 60% Territory and won 31:15.
Ruck Involvements were Brumbies 307 Total (232 Attack/75 Defence); Waratahs 154T (154A/64D)
In Round 8 the Brumbies had 38% Possession and 37% Territory and won 26:20.
Ruck Involvements were Brumbies 209T (121A/88D); Waratahs 264T (218A/46D)
The Brumbies were simply more efficient and more effective in most facets of the game.
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.
Ruck Involvements over Time
The Waratahs were clearly standing off most Defensive Rucks with Hooper making nearly 25% of the team’s total Defensive Ruck Involvements (DRIs). The Waratahs earned only 3 Turn Overs Won (TOW).
The Waratahs Front Rowers provided strong support for their ball carriers.
The Brumbies Back Row were very active in disrupting the Waratahs rucks making 35% of the team’s total DRIs. The Brumbies earned 6 TOW.
The Brumbies Front Rowers were unusually subdued in their level of Ruck Involvement.
Toomua had the highest TRIs for the Brumbies, closely followed by Kuridrani.
The Waratahs Backs were less involved: Robinson 13; Carraro 12; Folau 11. The Waratahs are certainly missing the impact of Hourne at the breakdown.
AUSSIE TEAM COMPARISONS
The Brumbies was the only winning Aussie team. The Force had a bye.
The Waratahs and Brumbies were head-to-head in Sydney. The Rebels clearly felt breakdown pressure from the Hurricanes at home. The Reds tried hard to pressure/disrupt the Bulls in Pretoria.
Possessions as follows: Waratahs 62%, Brumbies 38%, Rebels 49% and Reds 42%
The Waratahs continue to show a fairly even involvement from all player groups. Their Front Row (Roach, Ryan and Robertson) were more involved than normal.
Brumbies Front Row had very subdued ruck involvement and high level of involvement from their Backs.
Very similar distribution across player groups for Reds and Rebels despite very different opposition.
Waratahs Front Row and Locks showed strong support for their ball carriers.
Brumbies Back Row and Backs were very active in attack.
Again Reds and Rebels distribution similar.
The distribution shown by these teams reflects an Australian style for Defensive Ruck Involvements with the Back Row carrying much of the burden for disrupting opposition rucks/ball carriers with less involvement from the Front Row and minimal involvement from the Locks.
As seen in the 2nd Bledisloe game and RWC Final in 2015, this is in stark contrast to the All Blacks who have more involvement from their tight 5 freeing up the Back Row more as ball carriers in their linking role.
The Brumbies are well served by the DRIs provided by Toomua and Kuridrani .
All 4 Aussie teams were strong at the breakdown and in protecting their ball carriers.
The Brumbies Ruck Success is reflected by the 6 TOW compared to the Waratahs 3 TOW.
The Reds and Bulls shared the same level of Ruck Success in their hard fought encounter.
The Rebels have been very consistent and were close to their average.
Missed tackles was one of the Waratahs problem areas against the Brumbies.
The Reds missed 29 tackles against the Bulls who missed only 11 (Tackle Success – 88%).
The Rebels too missed 28 tackles against the Hurricanes who missed only 15 (TS – 86%).
The Waratahs handling errors all seemed to came at critical stages in the match with the Brumbies making the most of their possession.
MOST RUCK INVOLVEMENTS
Ruck Involvements over Time
The leading Ruck Involvements come from players from losing teams.
As usual the list is dominated by Back Rowers (6), more than normal Front Rowers (3) and only a couple of Locks.
I reckon that the level of ruck Involvement is a good measure of work rate for a Forward showing a focus on team rather than individual performance. I also recognise that the level of ruck involvement may be dictated by the game plan or coach’s orders.
Only 4 of these players were in the Wallabies 2015 RWC squad.
Gill’s leading Ruck Involvements is a commendable effort against the rampaging Bulls at altitude. His TRIs 36% more than the following group with almost double the Defensive Ruck Involvements as well as leader in the tackle count (plus a surprising field goal).
Toomua and Butler are included as the leaders from the only winning team in Round 8.
Fianga’a is included in recognition of his ongoing high work rate/involvement for the Reds.
No 7s – Open Side Flankers
Following Bob Dwyers’ comments about Hooper this week there has been lost of discussion about the relative merits of the No 7s in Aussie SR teams.
I’ve included Jordy Reid in the table below as he is often mention during despatches and due to the uncertainty regarding which flanker is which for the Rebels.
The No 7s fall into 3 main categories:
Ball Carriers – Hooper, McMahon and Reid
Active in Tight – Hodgson and Pocock
Hybrid – Gill (Caution – Stats from only 2.5 games)
I’m interested to see how these comparisons develop leading up to Wallabies selection for the England Tests.
Comparison with 2015
To assist discussion, I’ve added the same average stats for the 2015 season.
As can be seen there’s a lot of swings and roundabouts. However, in 2015, Hooper still had the least TRIs. There is no doubt that others are stronger over the ball and that others have also improved their ball carrying game. All of these players have had to adapt to the new breakdown rules and interpretations of same.
What Hooper was missing in the game against the Brumbies was the cohesion and support from his team mates. In particular check the number of DRIs from the new players Dempsey (av 6 DRIs) and Holloway (av 2 DRIs). This Back Row has had no time to meld as a unit.
In 2015, Hooper and the Waratahs had the contributions of Potgeiter (average 9 DRIs), Skelton (7 DRIs), Latu (7 DRIs) and Palu (6 DRIs).
McMahon gets the benefit of the co-ordinated support from Reid and Thompson; Hodgson from Cottrell and McCalman, Gill from Shatz/Browning and Tui and Pocock from Fardy and Vaea/Butler.
The effectiveness of Defensive Rucks depends on the systems and co-ordinated team effort rather than just an individual.
As discussed above, Aussie Front Rowers are simply not involved enough in this process. It’s almost as if they’re treated as precious scrummagers or set piece players only. I recommend comparing their efforts with those of the All Blacks Front Rowers.
The Western Force had arguably the best back Row in Aussie SR when Hodgson, Pocock and MCalman/Brown worked as a co-ordinated unit. It was a case of Hodgson providing the initial tackle, Pocock quickly in on the ball and McCalman providing the cleanout if required. Hodgson always quickly returned to the line in order to make the next tackle.
I think that Hooper is not showing this same speed of involvement. His lower level of TRIs supports this view.
