dru
David Wilson (68)
Is it that the tight five are not working hard enough or how the strategy places position and responsibility across the pack? That and our obsession with size in the locks (which often means reduced lateral movement).
Bledisloe 1 - Wallabies vs All Blacks, ANZ Stadium, Sydney, 8:05pm
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Is it that the tight five are not working hard enough or how the strategy places position and responsibility across the pack? That and our obsession with size in the locks (which often means reduced lateral movement).
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
The stats certainly say a lot about Kuridrani's involvements and probably just as much about the abilities of posters to objectively assess individuals' performances. Top tackler with no misses (17/17) and most ruck involvements by a back. Add to that, 25m gained and we probably have the best performance by a back (certainly by a Wallaby back) in the game. But most only remember his two (?) dropped passes, one which led to a try and shouldn't be glossed over. Kuridrani's main issues atm are a loss of top end speed which counts against him when he does make a line break, and his passing. He got a couple away on Saturday but they were very ordinary for a player at this level.
If he is dropped, make it for the right reasons - not because of the widespread mistaken belief that he is the only one with ball handling issues.
If he is dropped, make it for the right reasons - not because of the widespread mistaken belief that he is the only one with ball handling issues.
What concerns me in all those numbers is the unmeasured (and likely unmeasurable) effctiveness that was lacking from all those early and impactful ruck involvements, and how little (nothing) we did with all those turnovers. Thta's not to diminish players winning them at all, but to what end?
The patterns of involvements between the two teams are quite different and probably give a clue as to why the ABs needed to commit so few yet gained so much, and we did nothing with all that work. We had disrupted ball all night, they mostly had pretty clean and un-harried ball.
The patterns of involvements between the two teams are quite different and probably give a clue as to why the ABs needed to commit so few yet gained so much, and we did nothing with all that work. We had disrupted ball all night, they mostly had pretty clean and un-harried ball.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Thanks very much FF (Folau Fainga'a). My eyes, heart and brain had Pocock having a quiet night but your stats show a very different picture.
But they do show which forwards are actually putting in the effort while they are on the field and who is shirking their duties compared to other Forwards.
The efforts of Franks and Crockett really showed up the poor efforts of the Wallabies Front Rowers.
To me work rate is an important measure that isn't necessarily shown up by other stats.
I'd rather a player was winning Turn Overs rather than not. He's not responsible for the efforts of others.
The Wallabies almost total lack of support and and any level of continuity was probably the most concerning aspect of this game.
Some of these professionals simply went missing for most of their time on the field.
It wasn't so much a comment on your stats or methods, but what our players are actually doing.
In principle winning turnovers is great. My issue is that we put very little pressure on how they wanted to play, despite turnovers won.
And shirking implies purely that a player is instructed to do something but is not. It looks to me some are being told to play how they do and where on the field they do, and it clearly isn't working. Plus, as you say, some aren't putting in. I think our major failings are coaching related first and foremost, and players shirking behind that.
I don't think Hooper runs where he does because he's thinking "fuck Cheika, I'm staying wide" for example. Why else would Moore run around midfield on attack shovelling the ball on ? Just examples, I'm sure there are others.
I commend you for collating all this stuff - having coded games before I know how tedious it is. Good stuff!
Absolutely agree. Too many die hard Rugby people here with their head in the sand.
Seriously Joe Blow, you think I am talking garbage ? Look at what you just wrote. More talent at our disposal than we have ever had.. You really have your head in the sand. You don't even realise that the situation is getting worse, not better.
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
We have 5 Super sides instead of the previous 3 and a functional NRC comp. Last year we won the RC and got to the RWC final. Now, 2016 may not be going so well but we have a lot of talent coming through and I for one am positive about the future. How exactly is the situation getting worse?
If that is having my head in the sand then fair enough.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
chasmac
Alex Ross (28)
Just last week we had 3 (or 4) players with >100 caps. This must mean something in terms of quality.
Bled 1 - Numbers at Rucks
Have had a closer look at the ruck involvements for Bled 1 and particularly the number of players involved at each ruck.
These numbers represent players after the tackler/s who actually made contact with the ruck.
The profiles for Attack and Defence Rucks below.
Both teams supported their ball carriers to about the same extent. The All Blacks had 55% possession. The All Blacks avoided taking the ball into contact with 26 Off Loads to the Wallabies 5.
The All Blacks stood off ~60% of the Wallabies rucks, preferring to maintain their strong defensive line.
The Wallabies stood off ~30% of the All Blacks rucks.
The Wallabies were more involved in attempting to place the All Blacks ball carriers under pressure, slowing the ball down, forcing penalties or actually making a turn over.
The Wallabies earned 12 TOW at an effectiveness of 1TOW/8.3 DRIs.
The All Blacks earned 8TOW at an effectiveness of 1TOW/7.6DRIs.
i.e. about the same effectivess.
However, Pocock's 7TOW - 1TOW/3DRIs is still very impressive.
Did the Wallabies over-commit numbers to the breakdown?
These numbers would suggest not.
It seems strange to me that the Wallabies work so hard to put pressure on the opposition ball carriers only to give up possession so easily with senseless kicking - including uncontested high balls.
The 40 missed tackles (70% efficiency) speaks for itself regarding lack of pressure elsewhere on the park, as does the Wallabies 72% line out efficiency.
Both teams made about the same number of Handling Errors.
Have had a closer look at the ruck involvements for Bled 1 and particularly the number of players involved at each ruck.
These numbers represent players after the tackler/s who actually made contact with the ruck.
The profiles for Attack and Defence Rucks below.
Both teams supported their ball carriers to about the same extent. The All Blacks had 55% possession. The All Blacks avoided taking the ball into contact with 26 Off Loads to the Wallabies 5.
The All Blacks stood off ~60% of the Wallabies rucks, preferring to maintain their strong defensive line.
The Wallabies stood off ~30% of the All Blacks rucks.
The Wallabies were more involved in attempting to place the All Blacks ball carriers under pressure, slowing the ball down, forcing penalties or actually making a turn over.
The Wallabies earned 12 TOW at an effectiveness of 1TOW/8.3 DRIs.
The All Blacks earned 8TOW at an effectiveness of 1TOW/7.6DRIs.
i.e. about the same effectivess.
However, Pocock's 7TOW - 1TOW/3DRIs is still very impressive.
Did the Wallabies over-commit numbers to the breakdown?
These numbers would suggest not.
It seems strange to me that the Wallabies work so hard to put pressure on the opposition ball carriers only to give up possession so easily with senseless kicking - including uncontested high balls.
The 40 missed tackles (70% efficiency) speaks for itself regarding lack of pressure elsewhere on the park, as does the Wallabies 72% line out efficiency.
Both teams made about the same number of Handling Errors.
ArmchairGeneral
Ward Prentice (10)
Edit:wrong thread
if you had mortlock, tune, roff and latham in the same team, youre not going to be giving somee like two dads a long career with heaps of starts, his arse would hurt with have splinters from being benched week in week out.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
NSW Police still haven't worked out who planted the bug but have ruled out the All Blacks (duh) & betting syndicates (not sure how they'd know that without first knowing who did plant the thing, but Anyhoo...):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...lacks-cleared-in-sydney-hotel-bugging-scandal
I'm thinking that in a few weeks or months, after they've gone through all the CCTV, there'll be a statement to the effect "We still don't have a freakin' clue who did it".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...lacks-cleared-in-sydney-hotel-bugging-scandal
I'm thinking that in a few weeks or months, after they've gone through all the CCTV, there'll be a statement to the effect "We still don't have a freakin' clue who did it".
- Status