Pumas vs Wallabies - Sunday 9th October @ Twickenham
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
tragic
John Solomon (38)
Only because the best 7 has been playing 8
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
Except he hasn't. Hooper has been playing looser and Pocock has been a 7 in every respect bar where he packa in the scrum. Look at his last half of football. Had his hands in just about every defensive ruck we had.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
Ok so hooper has been the best 7 playing as a smallish 8 and pocock has been the best 7 wearing the 8 jersey playing as a 7.
Got it.
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
Mmmm you got me
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Ruck Involvements - Pumas v Wallabies - London
This Test (P21:33W) was almost the repeat of the Perth Test (P20:36W) with the Wallabies earning the win in both with only ~34% Possession and Territory.
In assessing the Ruck Involvement Stats many considered the Perth Test as a bit of an anomaly.
However, the London Test had >20% fewer Ruck Involvements.
Both teams were standing off Defence Rucks - Wallabies 50% & Pumas 40%.
The average number of players involved at the breakdown were quite low:
Wallabies - Attack 2.2/Defence 0.5; Pumas - Attack 2.3/Defence 0.6.
The SR2016 averages for Aussie teams: Attack 2.4-2.7 and Defence 0.7-0.8.
Not surprisingly the TOW were quite low: Wallabies 4; Pumas 3.
The Pumas won 97% (99/102) of their rucks; the Wallabies 90% (36/40).
Both teams attempted to Off Load in contact: Pumas 16; Wallabies 7.
Both teams had few kicks from hand: Pumas 15; Wallabies 12 (Total 27).
The Wallabies missed 29 tackles - tackling effectiveness 75% (85/114).
The Pumas missed 16 tackles - tackling efficiency 67% (33/49)
Obviously this game plan has been effective against the Pumas.
I doubt that that we'll see it utilised against the ABs in Auckland.
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.
This Test (P21:33W) was almost the repeat of the Perth Test (P20:36W) with the Wallabies earning the win in both with only ~34% Possession and Territory.
In assessing the Ruck Involvement Stats many considered the Perth Test as a bit of an anomaly.
However, the London Test had >20% fewer Ruck Involvements.
Both teams were standing off Defence Rucks - Wallabies 50% & Pumas 40%.
The average number of players involved at the breakdown were quite low:
Wallabies - Attack 2.2/Defence 0.5; Pumas - Attack 2.3/Defence 0.6.
The SR2016 averages for Aussie teams: Attack 2.4-2.7 and Defence 0.7-0.8.
Not surprisingly the TOW were quite low: Wallabies 4; Pumas 3.
The Pumas won 97% (99/102) of their rucks; the Wallabies 90% (36/40).
Both teams attempted to Off Load in contact: Pumas 16; Wallabies 7.
Both teams had few kicks from hand: Pumas 15; Wallabies 12 (Total 27).
The Wallabies missed 29 tackles - tackling effectiveness 75% (85/114).
The Pumas missed 16 tackles - tackling efficiency 67% (33/49)
Obviously this game plan has been effective against the Pumas.
I doubt that that we'll see it utilised against the ABs in Auckland.
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.
- The Pumas main focus was supporting their own ball carriers.
- 50% of their Defense Ruck Involvements were from single player involvements.
- Main involvements from Creevy, Desio and Leguizamon. None earned a TOW.
- Hooper, Timani and Fardy had more than 50% of the Wallabies DRIs. Hooper earned 1TOW.
- I don't recall another game where the Wallabies Front Row (starters and bench) had so little involvement at the breakdown.
- The Wallabies started the 2nd half with a 10 point lead but struggled to put the Pumas away.
- The Wallabies struggled with the Pumas off load game.
- The Pumas worked hard to get within 3 points at 45 min and remained withing a converted try until Mumm's try at 77 minutes.
- Strong last-20-minutes rucking efforts by Hooper and Timani and bench players Fardy, Douglas, Robertson and Ala'alatoa in the last 20 minutes helped gain the win.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
- Fairly even distribution across all main player groups for the Pumas.
- Very subdued involvement by the Wallabies Tight 5.
- Wallabies Back Row made 50% of TRIs.
Wallabies Tight 5 provided some support for their own ball carriers.
- Most pressure on the Pumas Ball Carriers was applied by the Back Row with some support from the Backs.
- Kerevi the best Back - 9 Total (3A/6D)
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Wobs back to third, Pumas drop to ninth in the world rankings:
http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings/mru
AB now have the highest points & biggest lead since the rankings were introduced.
http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings/mru
AB now have the highest points & biggest lead since the rankings were introduced.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Not surprising the Aus numbers are so low considering we had so little ball. Very similar to the last Argentina test where interestingly we also won only 36 rucks.
Re-affirms my view of Mumm. Had a few good runs but for a guy that played 80 (nobody else played more than 70) who was 5th in the tackle count he has a pretty low ruck involvement for a 6. Obviously Fardy's is high because he is involved in defensive rucks but in 50 minutes of the game Mumm was involved in a total of 3 rucks.
Re-affirms my view of Mumm. Had a few good runs but for a guy that played 80 (nobody else played more than 70) who was 5th in the tackle count he has a pretty low ruck involvement for a 6. Obviously Fardy's is high because he is involved in defensive rucks but in 50 minutes of the game Mumm was involved in a total of 3 rucks.
One thing that needs to be considered from both these Pumas tests is that the Pumas managed so much possession because they didn't do a huge amount with it. They could maintain possession and stretch us but struggled to break our defence.
Meanwhile the Wallabies scored tries from plays that often involved very little possession (especially from a Pumas mistake).
If the Pumas hadn't conceded so easily the overall possession and territory stats would have looked more even and somewhat counter-intuitively, the scoreline would have been closer too.
Meanwhile the Wallabies scored tries from plays that often involved very little possession (especially from a Pumas mistake).
If the Pumas hadn't conceded so easily the overall possession and territory stats would have looked more even and somewhat counter-intuitively, the scoreline would have been closer too.
It isn't that hard to work it out, when they are both playing, you have each play in the way that suits their strengths while complimenting eachother's strengths.
I find the whole treatment of the Nick Phipps incident to be quite strange. I'll preface this by saying I don't think Phipps should have shoved him but the outcome and general comments on the issue are a little perplexing.
Does anyone remember who the commentators said the Argentinian was? I believe he was a former test player.
If you compare it to the Mike Brown/Nathan Grey incident, Grey copped all the criticism even though he was standing in his designated area. Both Grey and the Argentinian played at the ball when they clearly shouldn't have.
If anything I think Australia should have received the penalty because the Argentinian medic absolutely shouldn't have touched the ball.
Phipps was silly though and it just underscored the overall poor discipline by the Wallabies.
If the situation was reversed and that was Nathan Grey out on the field running water and he played at the ball in this situation and an opposition player pushed him over I don't think there would be much criticism for that opposition player.
Does anyone remember who the commentators said the Argentinian was? I believe he was a former test player.
If you compare it to the Mike Brown/Nathan Grey incident, Grey copped all the criticism even though he was standing in his designated area. Both Grey and the Argentinian played at the ball when they clearly shouldn't have.
If anything I think Australia should have received the penalty because the Argentinian medic absolutely shouldn't have touched the ball.
Phipps was silly though and it just underscored the overall poor discipline by the Wallabies.
If the situation was reversed and that was Nathan Grey out on the field running water and he played at the ball in this situation and an opposition player pushed him over I don't think there would be much criticism for that opposition player.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
It's not the same as the Grey incident. The medic on the field had zero effect on the game (until Phipps pushed him and was penalised) because the ball was dead. It wasn't in play.
Grey deliberately went out of his way to played the ball so that England could not have a quick line-out - so although the ball is over the side-line it is still in play IMO. Grey got what he deserved.
So IMO there's a big difference between an official/medic going to retrieve a dead ball and Grey attacking a ball still in play.
This Phipp incident it just comical all-round, everyone was in the wrong.
I completely accept that they are different incidents. The point I was making is that the outcome in terms of actions by World Rugby and comments in the media have been polar opposites even though I think the situations are far closer and in both the non-player is in the wrong in my opinion.
Both were gamesmanship on the part of people not participating in the match and shouldn't have happened. Both should have been publicly notified that their actions were inappropriate.
The ball was not in play because play needs to be restarted by a scrum which requires the referee but a player can still be penalised in that situation if they interfere with the ball when they shouldn't.
Both were gamesmanship on the part of people not participating in the match and shouldn't have happened. Both should have been publicly notified that their actions were inappropriate.
The ball was not in play because play needs to be restarted by a scrum which requires the referee but a player can still be penalised in that situation if they interfere with the ball when they shouldn't.
Probably just because he wasn't off balance like the Argentinian was. Brown gave him a shove.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Doesn't matter what phipps was responding to, there is no excuse for what phipps did, it is in no way his place. That doesn't mean the Argentinian shouldn't be cautioned, but phipps is being rightly blamed for his own stupidity.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
Sure, I never said otherwise.
- Status