Number of tries scored by Maul 2015
- Thread starter Gagger
- Start date
- Status
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Some damn good game analysis here:
http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=76
But they do not cover Super Rugby, nor do they cover the no of tries scored from a maul/rolling maul.
Their analysis of Try scoring is broken down into:
Origin of Tries territorially - Own Half, Halfway to 10 m, 10 m to 22 m, and 22 m to Goal line
Number of Ruck and Maul in build up to tries - 0 R/M, 1 R/M, 2 R/M, 3+ R/M
Source of Tries - Lineout, Scrum, Pen/FK, Kick, Turnover, Restart
No of passes in Build up to tries - 0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10+
While not directly addressing @Gagger's query, the data on that site does contain all sorts of interesting (to Rugby Nerds) facts and trend information about the game.
http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=76
But they do not cover Super Rugby, nor do they cover the no of tries scored from a maul/rolling maul.
Their analysis of Try scoring is broken down into:
Origin of Tries territorially - Own Half, Halfway to 10 m, 10 m to 22 m, and 22 m to Goal line
Number of Ruck and Maul in build up to tries - 0 R/M, 1 R/M, 2 R/M, 3+ R/M
Source of Tries - Lineout, Scrum, Pen/FK, Kick, Turnover, Restart
No of passes in Build up to tries - 0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10+
While not directly addressing @Gagger's query, the data on that site does contain all sorts of interesting (to Rugby Nerds) facts and trend information about the game.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
That being the case lucky we can use the Brumbies maul as the model for the Wallabies with Pocock on the back. Lucky no one is putting the Brumbies / Wallabies model under any scrutiny pre WC like writing to SANZAR. publishing critical articles or banging on about it being illegally set up. or players incorrectly joining week in week out.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Thanks. Does explain below comment for us and shows its nothing to do with a Tah / Hooper bias as its mainly about the other 7 blokes in the 3,4,5,6....... even as much as 13 in a maul. He is just one of the 7 in a 13 man maul.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
So, he's better at something without any evidence to support such claim due to a physical skillset that he also shares with the other player, but that's irrelevant because it doesn't come down to the individual anyways?
Glad we sorted that out quickly.............
Glad we sorted that out quickly.............
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Yep, otherwise we could have ended up in some evidenced based argument over the several tries Pocock did fluff by breaking off the back of the maul early which we all witnessed early on in the season...............
If the maul is constructed and run better (as the Brumbies' is, legality of most mauls we see from most teams notwithstanding) then the guy at the back will score more and have to do less to actually get the try. Pocock is the beneficiary of a well-run maul; whether that means he is the point of difference is moot, but he must get some credit for being part of it. The Tahs are generally so poor at it, I couldn't really say if Hooper was any good at the back or not. You'd expect he'd have a good chance of getting over the line, being a good runner in / through contact in general, but I'm not sure it makes him better or worse than anyone on a maul.
The only good thing the Tahs do with a maul, is when Skelton breaks one. By and large.
The only good thing the Tahs do with a maul, is when Skelton breaks one. By and large.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Careful, that's pretty radical thinking!
That sort of thinking leads to other radical thoughts like having a good maul, and decent back-line attack could make teams struggle working out what to defend, and almost a balanced game plan.
Could mention the Brumbies good defence record this season but.........
I suspect other teams will be better at stopping them too.
I would not be surprised if there is some serious discussion behind the scenes prior to the RWC about mauling - coaches will have a chance to raise concerns about various issues I would think, and the increase (seemingly) in maul tries won't slip under the radar. Particularly around the set-up, the initial sack / disrupt or even back-off / "non-contest", and the "contestability" of them once in motion. We're seeing the quick pass back from the catcher now to avoid the issue of the catcher being sacked (one of the few times it can be stopped), but the set-up then becomes suspect (obstruction) almost impossible to defend, and once you have a train of players 3-4 long and 2 wide, what can you legally do?
I'm not anti-mauls, by the way, but I think one of the basic tenets of rugby, being a contest for possession, needs to be upheld, and currently, it often is not.
I have little doubt it will be a contentious issue at the RWC, one way or the other.
The NH teams have seemed to be a bit ahead of the game a bit in regards to spoiling, and I agree, it seems to be more closely scrutinised up there, in many games I've seen. We'll see. In any event, the Wallabies will need to put some serious time into training it, but also how they adapt to it.
- Status