Bledisloe #2 - AUS v NZL, Eden Park, Auckland, August 15th

[ForceFan]

Murder on the Dance Floor
Forwards Ruck Involvement

Bled 2 in Auckland saw a total reversal in form by both sets of Forwards.
Unfortunately, this meant that the Wallaby Forwards were generally outgunned by the All Black Forwards.

In the first half the All Black Forwards were “flooding” the breakdown and had nearly 30% more ruck engagements over the whole game. (Head-to-head breakdown for first half at end)
The All Blacks earned 5 Turn Overs Won at the breakdown; the Wallabies only 2 TOW (Nick White at 46 mins and David Pocock at 56 mins).

4 All Black Forwards had more ruck involvements than the leading Wallaby Forward – Scott Fardy with 26 Total Ruck involvements.

Apart from Pocock, the Wallaby “Finishers” offered little change at the breakdown.
In his 41 minutes, Pocock finished with the same number of ruck involvements as Hooper had for the whole game, and nearly 4 x the Defensive Ruck Involvements of Hooper.
Together Fardy (82 mins) and Pocock (41 mins) made >50% of the total defensive ruck involvements made by the Wallaby Forwards.

For both teams the Forwards made about 80% of the Total Ruck Involvements and 80% of Total Ruck involvements were Attack Rucks. Both sides were generally holding off Defensive Rucks.

The ruck data only tells part of the story for any of the Forwards. Check out other stats at ESPN Scrum.

There is a summary for each Forward’s average ruck involvement for the 3 TRC Tests, as well as a comparison with SXV 2015 averages at: G&GR/Rugby Discussions/Wallaby Forwards – Stats for TWC (?? Typo – TRC).

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.

Any surprises??

Kuridrani, To'omua and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) (9) had ~65% of the ruck involvements made by Wallaby Backs.

Nonu, C Smith and Carter (9) had ~65% of the ruck involvements made by All BlackBacks.

The Wallaby Forwards held their own for the first 21 mins. The score was 3:3.
A Wallaby Line Out and collapsed maul resulted in a critical turning point when Sam Whitelock earned a turnover. The Wallaby Forwards were still lying on the ground while the AB Forwards were already on the move. This quickly resulted in Dan Coles’ try. Mc Caw earned another turnover shortly after. At 26 mins it had been Wallabies with 69% Territory and 50% Possession. A penalty against Kepu for not rolling away resulted in another successful Carter penalty at 28 mins– score 13:3. 10 points in 7 minutes.
In the 20-30 minute period Wallaby Forwards had only 6 ruck involvements (Backs 4 others - 10 Total – 4A/6D). In the same period the AB Forwards had 20 ruck involvements (Backs 9 others – 29 Total - 27A/2D).

Of particular note is that the All Blacks Locks maintain their work rate throughout the full 80 minutes.

This table looks at a head to head of Forwards for the 1st half.

The All Blacks had 20% more possession but had 47% more ruck involvements.

The All Blacks Forwards generally had much higher work rates in supporting their own ball carriers and putting the Wallaby ball carriers under pressure.

The ABs Front Row had nearly 80% more ruck involvements than their Wallaby opponents.

The ABs Locks had nearly 50% more ruck involvements than their Wallaby opponents.

The ABs Back Row had >20% more ruck involvements than their Wallaby opponents.

Only Moore, Horwill and Palu matched the efforts of their opposition.

Fardy (5 or >25%) was the leading Wallaby for Defensive Ruck involvements but was well short of McCaw’s 11 Defensive Ruck involvement (46% of ABs).

 

[formerflanker]

It's not even the turnovers which he generates that impresses me the most, it's the way he also protects the Wallabies ball at their own rucks, when you have blokes like Palu, Skelton and Horwill who are all slow to the ruck you need someone like Pocock there to secure your own ball, and Hooper just doesn't play that style of game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a video review of the last few Test matches would show you that Hooper is first to many Wallaby ball carriers when they hit the deck; he protects our breakdown ball well.

 

[jimmydubs]

I thought mccaw was past it...
Hoops with half as many ruck involvements as an old fella. The energiser bunny may need to focus some of that energy tighter in?

 

[Train Without a Station]

I thought mccaw was past it.
Hoops with half as many ruck involvements as an old fella. The energiser bunny may need to focus some of that energy tighter in?

Not necessarily. If it's tighter in numbers 1-5 should be getting there. He should be getting to almost every ruck when the ball goes outside the 10 though.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not necessarily. If it's tighter in numbers 1-5 should be getting there. He should be getting to almost every ruck when the ball goes outside the 10 though.

TWAS, tragic as it is, I was thinking about the boots thing: what is the evidence that moulded soles are faster?
Running spikes worked (when people ran on grass) on the principle that they dug in and sprigs are just an extension of that.

 

[Train Without a Station]

TWAS, tragic as it is, I was thinking about the boots thing: what is the evidence that moulded soles are faster?
Running spikes worked (when people ran on grass) on the principle that they dug in and sprigs are just an extension of that.

The moulded base fits around your the sole of your feet better than the screw in base which also depending on the quality of the base, has the length of the thread sticking back into your feet to some degree. To minimize that you have to thicken the base which is heavier and less comfortable.

I'd anticipate there's much heavier engineering in a screw in boot that has to withstand a much greater range of force than a running spike which is generally just up and down with slight forwards and backwards bend. A stud is likely to be bent in multiple directions and potential exert greater forces at weak angles when driving and pushing, etc.

Look at how light a running spike would be compared to a screw in boot.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah, as someone who sprinted for many years, a running spike and a screw-in rugby boot are poles apart. Not remotely comparable.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Seconded. I was a sprinter as well as a rugby player and the design, fit and spike/stud pattern of a rugby boot and the spikes I used to wear were very different.

 

[RugbyReg]

yeah yeah, WE GET IT! You guys were athletes!

Shees.

 

[cyclopath]

yeah yeah, WE GET IT! You guys were athletes!

Shees.

As were you, Reg, in your own stylish way, I'm sure!

 

[BDA]

Guys I haven't commented on the game yet so I thought I'd give a few thoughts. I made the mistake of watching the game at an irish pub full of Kiwis. That made it all the more painful.

- man we really do suck at playing at Eden Park. Not exactly sure why. I'd say apart of it is like the Suncorp factor, i.e. the All Blacks love playing there and always seem to produce their best rugby against us at the venue. The other part I guess is the hostile crowd. whatever it is I'm guess Wallabies are allergic to the venue.
-I actually thought we were pretty good in the first half. I thought Nigel Owens was letting the kiwis get a way with a bit at the ruck and gave a few weird scrum penalties against us when clearly we were going forward. The breakaway try in the first half though was indicative of our problem at Eden park. The All Blacks tend to play Champagne rugby there and because we were off our game, they ran away with it.
- I thought the defence in the second half was very poor and we deserved to get soundly beaten.
- I feel for Cooper a bit because I thought he was generally ok. In fact he played much better than Carter played last week. The send off was unfortunate. He looked to be trying to tackle Smith around the shoulders and smith (being a small bloke), ducked into it. I thought a penalty try would have been fair but I think the send off was a bit much. It essentially killed the game and if Owens had actually taken the time to watch the replace he would have seen that Smith had ducked into it.

MOVING FORWARD - POSITIVITY

Firstly I think we need to remember that one bad game doesn't make us a bad team. So we were soundly beaten at Eden Park. That's nothing new. We otherwise been very good this season. We'll presumably go into the world cup with 4 wins against ARG,NZ,SA,USA and one loss at Eden Park and a Rugby Championship. Any team in world rugby would envy that record, so lets not forget that.

Also, there is actually some positives to come out of this game. Cheika didn't role out the same winning formula as last week, so he has protected that line up. At the same time he used the occasion to test other combinations and we now have a much better idea of what our starting side is:-
1. Line-out - I think part of the problem with the lineout will end when Simo returns. It clearly all revolves around him while he's in the team.
2. Pack - Pocock must start. I think Pooper is the way to go, but if not, Hooper should be on the bench.
3. I think Skelton is a bench option, but not a starter.
4. Palu and Skelton shouldn't be in the same 15.
5. If we face the All Blacks in the World Cup final we start Pooper.

Moving forward I think our best back 5 is probably:-

4.Simo
5.Horwill / Douglas
6.Fardy
7.Hooper
8.Pocock

 

[RugbyReg]

double whammy.

I could never be accused of being either stylish nor athletic.

 

[Langthorne]

Thanks for those ruck stats Force Fan.

It was my impression that Palu was quite well involved, relative to others whilst he was on, and certainly not the bag of shit so many people seem to be suggesting. I agree with most posters that Pocock is one of our best players, and should start all important matches, but that does not mean Palu is therefore crap. It seems like Palu is being blamed for the Wallabies not leading by 30 when he was subbed, to make up for all the points they would concede when he was off the field.

The ABs were the better team, but less missed tackles, and less stupid kicks, would have made a big difference (especially in the second half).

Skelton's ruck involvements don't make for good reading.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Langthorne I think it was more so the lack of running. We lost against Pocock because he basically did similar ruck and defence work without offering the same ball in hand, or in turnovers.

But as you said, doesn't mean he's poor. He's just a step down from one of our best players.

 

[Braveheart81]

The lack of run metres from all our forwards was concerning. We just didn't get that go forward that was required.

The ESPNscrum.com stats showing our leading forward runners in terms of metres being Skelton and Slipper with 9m each doesn't make for good reading.

 

[ForceFan]

It was my impression that Palu was quite well involved, relative to others whilst he was on, and certainly not the bag of shit so many people seem to be suggesting...................

Skelton's ruck involvements don't make for good reading.

It's of concern that Palu's ruck early arrivals were about the same as 2 Props (Slipper and Holmes).

IMO it wasn't just Skelton's ruck stats. If he's ineffective at the LIne Out then we need more from him around the park than:

• 4 runs for 9m; 2 Def Beaten, 0 Clean Break, 0 Offloads
• 1 Line Out Wins (he's had only 1 in nearly 200 mins of Test rugby this year)
• 3 Tackles
• 1 Penalty
• 9 rucks (5A/4D) with 0 Turn Overs.

Hardly the "wrecking ball" that is being expected or promoted.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

yeah yeah, WE GET IT! You guys were athletes!

Shees.

No.
They were backs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

No.
They were backs.

Erm, flanker and occasional lock in my case #thankyouverymuch.

Anyway, on the game. The lack of go forward in the pigs was very concerning and it's quite telling how much the All Blacks flooded the breakdown. I guarantee that England will do the same, because it's what they always do against is.

 

[BDA]

The lack of run metres from all our forwards was concerning. We just didn't get that go forward that was required.

I'd actually put this down in part to Nick White at 9. He just doesn't have the quick service of Phipps. That was a failed experiment IMO.

 

[RedsHappy]

The chinks in Chek are starting to show, there is no hiding place once a national HC gets to around 8-10 Tests of tenure.

- the 'rotational and experimental' changes to the Sydney squad were, as some of us predicted prior, high risk and potentially reckless, and at EP, they were revealed as such. Little if anything was gained from them, and much was lost via them. The notion that the Aus rugby community as a whole will value a great RWC performance more than wining a BC is flawed in my view (and Deans putting all his declared eggs into 'developing for RWC 2011' vs a hard focus on 'winning now' ended in tears at that RWC).

Wonderful fan and media enthusiasm - rightly consolidated with excitement and pleasure from the Sydney victory - was squandered in Auckland where we looked worse than 2014's Test there, if such was possible.

A sensible and positive goal from Sydney was further improvement in Auckland, and a narrow loss. Instead, we went backwards, H2 of the game was a classic modern Wallaby debacle of brain fades, lowered intensity, poor forwards work, idiotic kicking, fallen skills. Come yesterday back in Aus, newly positive, wide media coverage of the 2015 Wallabies turned sceptical and sour all over again. Big shame.

(Do I vaguely recall that the ABs tried some kind of 'experimental/rotational' squad design policy pre RWC 2007 and G Henry wrote later that it was one of his biggest-ever mistakes and 'never again'?)

- I said ages ago that Cheika showed subtle, and potentially dangerous, signs of hubris and managerial over-reach in insisting to the ARU that he coach both the Tahs and Wallabies in 2015. And that this would end with neither being optimised and neither getting the desired outcomes in 2015.

I stand by that assessment. Chek understandably entered 2015 highly distracted by those two crucial parallel roles. The 2015 Tahs did not evolve and innovate enough vs 2014, and they paid the price very clearly as they had no answer when the Clan so brutally unlocked their overly-rigid code in the S15 SF.

- I posted weeks or months ago that we'd rue the day that we did not build anything like a comprehensive enough national Wallaby coaching team to (a) deal properly with well-established serious Wallaby weaknesses of long vintage and (b) compete with the full-scale coaching professionalism of particularly the ABs, and just as likely the likes of England.

I then highlighted the lack of a dedicated Wallaby forwards coach, the lack of an experienced line out coach (Ledesma is not that), and the lack of a full-time kicking and catching coach, and, ideally, the lack of a sports psychologist or mental skills coach (a la the ABs exceptional G Enoka).

It's very clear after TRC and the BC that each of the above crucial facets of elite national rugby are far from being attended to adequately and optimised by the Wallaby coaching group.

Our forwards play is at best erratic and inconsistent, the moment the ABs put the real heat on at the breakdown at EP we crumbled, partly as we had no Poey to start the match, as we did similarly vs the Boks in Brisbane where the Boks far superior turnover rate nearly won them the game. We will not win BCs or RWCs with numbers 1-8 that only really turn up for 1 out of 3 games, and/or only for home games. It's in this area that a really good, wholly dedicated forwards coach - like an M Foley or a L Fisher - can make a huge difference over time. HC's trying to run backs or forwards themselves just stretches them too thin given the technical, S&C and skills work required in today's game, neither task is optimised.

Do I need to even mention the line out debacles? Saying it's all about Simmons' absence is woefully superficial. The prices paid for a chaotic or inconsistent line out in Tests - well, we all know them don't we.

Gnostic above made his typically astute observations re the kicking capabilities (or the lack thereof) of our back 3, and the criticality of kicking skills to productive and successful exit strategies. It's obvious is it not that even our better kickers back there (let alone btw our 10s) - e.g. Mitchell - are not kicking from hand consistently well enough, they need full-time technical support and guidance. Posters here that have said they only need more intensive practice by themselves are a relic of the 1970s, they don't appreciate what the M Alred's and S Lierich's of this world do as kicking coaches and why they're so valued the best kickers. And, btw, who should we see shoulder-to-shoulder with Hansen on Saturday night in the ABs' coaching box - none other than the Aussie Mick Byrne, the ABs kicking/catching/ball skills coach! - funny about that.

It's bullshit that the Wallabies don't suffer psychological anxiety playing at EP - it's so obvious that at that ground, they start to crack mentally when the ABs breathe fire and start to dominate them. It's precisely these types of exceptional pressure conditions that crack mental skills coaches work out how to compensate for and overcome, that's one of the biggest reasons sports psychologists are a booming global profession - the best-managed teams/sports businesses have come to realise they can deliver key '1%-ers' in team mind improvement, the crucial small gains in mindset that can make major differences to outcomes on game day.

My impression is that Chek has decided that his clearly excellent man-management and motivational skills coupled with a only small, incomplete group of support coaches are quite enough to get to the big time and drink from the big cups.

In the hyper-competitive global rugby world of 2015, and into a RWC against an AB side that has invested in deep, extensive coaching capability that is truly world-class (as their record shows), to me Chek's managerial attitude betrays both hubris and inexperience at this level.

Further, there is no one in the ARU even vaguely experienced or smart enough to provide him the high-level of advice he probably needs in these areas. Chek's personal talents are real, they may well take us upwards, however standing alone in their current guise, they may be proven necessary but, unsupplemented as they are by deeper coaching infrastructure, insufficient to get to the pinnacle.