2012 Statistics In Comparison To The All Blacks

[Scott Allen]

The New Zealand Herald have just produced numbers for the All Blacks in 2012 comparing statistics against a range of countries - seethe article here. I don't think there's anything new about the Wallabies numbers included in that analysis but it's interesting to compare against a range of countries.

One of the numbers is players used. I recently posted a blog article comparing player workloads between Australia and New Zealand - read it here if you missed it. These latest numbers confirm again that the number of players used by the Wallabies in 2012 (which I maintain was 40) was not anything out of the ordinary for an international team.

 

[gel]

1. Wallabies vs Scotland
2. Wallabies vs Wales
3. Wallabies vs Wales
4. Wallabies vs Wales
5. Wallabies vs all blacks
6. All blacks vs wallabies
7. Wallabies vs springboks
8. Wallabies vs Argentina
9. Springboks vs wallabies
10. Argentina vs wallabies
11. Wallabies vs all blacks
12. France vs wallabies
13. England vs wallabies
14. Italy vs wallabies
15. Wales vs wallabies

Games Australia played in 2012: 15
Games daily rag states Australia played: 13

Oddly enough though, they count the correct number of tries.

Your count of 40 is probably correct given they have chosen to ignore two games from 2012 that the wallabies played.

*edit* and you are correct, the numbers the wobs used were obviously not out of the ordinary for this year and is just a convenient excuse.

 

[p.Tah]

the numbers the wobs used were obviously not out of the ordinary for this year and is just a convenient excuse.

if you look at the stats, yes the numbers are not out of the ordinary per se, but we need to look at why coahces used the nuber of players they used:

• France's number are high because they ran a 2nds team against Argentina this year.
• Some teams (and I haven't look into this) may have increased the number of players they used by giving more players a go via the bench but their match 15 remained relatively constant though the season.
• were the other team's high numbers of players forced through injury (as in our case) or were the coaches tinkering with combinations or rotating to maintain freshness?

 

[Slim 293]

The numbers only become interesting for Australia when you take into account that they had about 20 of their best players missing.........

 

[qwerty51]

If you want to compare workloads you have to include 2011 because 2012 is when you'll feel the effects from a heavy 2011 workload.

 

[Forcefield]

The numbers only become interesting for Australia when you take into account that they had about 20 of their best players missing...

Completely agree. It's not how many players used its the difference in the injured player and the replacement player.

e.g. Will Genia >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick Phipps. James Horwill/Dan Vickerman >>>>> Sitaleki Timani/Kane Douglas/Rob Simmons. Luckily David Pocock > Michael Hooper.

It's hard to compare James O'Connor to other wingers (assuming he would be played there) but he would have made a big difference.

I would also point out that our injury dramas were probably worse or equal to those of 2005. We lost 3 from 4 on that Spring Tour (against fairly average opposition in England and Wales). We may have played like shit this year but at least we didn't lose as many as back then.

This year wasn't that bad at all really win-loss wise. Won one and lost one against the Boks. Lost to the French. Couple of losses to the ABs. Loss to Scotland that hardly counts. The big problems were that we were fairly boring in our play and that we didn't absolutely annihilate anyone.

 

[hawktrain]

NZ drop goal count: 2
Aus drop goal count: 2
SA drop goal count: 1
Eng drop goal count: 1

I never thought I'd see this day...

 

[TOCC]

Didn't Australia also kick the most penalty goals?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Numbers of players used isn't really a useful stat in isolation. I think the biggest problem for Australia is the lack of combinations in key areas over the last 12 months (and before). No settled 12/13, a loose forward trio that changes more often not, the back 3 became a revolving door (mainly due to the demise of QC (Quade Cooper) and Beiber being crook).

What seemed to happen frequently during the year is that you think something is settled and then someone goes down mid week or on game day and a new player isn't necessarily brought in, but a stop gap filler is used.

 

[gel]

My point was that the execution of the players was abysmal a lot of the time. It doesn't matter if the best were injured or not: it doesn't change the fact that those that played for the wallabies this year struggled to execute even the most basic of skills.

Whether that was due to poor coaching, poor training, poor game plans that the players didn't really "believe in", poor selection of players, unprofessional attitudes of the players themselves, the worst run of luck in the history of the universe, or something else, I have no idea.

The players picked were (are) not shit, so there is no excuse for them to have played like they are.

Not questioning their heart, not questioning their win/loss ratio which ended up OK, not saying I don't support them, just stating that the rest of the rugby world had their own issues and troubles and managed to still score tries and win matches they should have, but we seem happy to just make excuses.

 

[gel]

Loss to Scotland that hardly counts.

Would you care to elaborate on why that match hardly counted? It was a test match.

I sort of get just about everything else you said, just curious about that bit.

 

[Bardon]

I actually thought the Scotland game was very significant. Australia played the conditions very well and dominated possession and territory but they couldn't put Scotland away. I think Pocock learned a big lesson about taking the points on offer and became a better captain for it.