New Zealand v Tonga – What’s relevant to the Wallabies?
An improved performance by the All Blacks
.
It’s difficult to criticise a 7 tries to nil result. However, I would expect the All Blacks to continue to build upon this effort.
All Blacks gained this result with only 42-43% of Possession and Territory but had the better running game – 118 carries for 506m (8 Clean Breaks; 21 Defenders Beaten; 7 Offloads) against 132 carries for only 242m (2 CB; 15 DB; 8OL).
Tonga Forwards continually crashing the ball into contact was unlikely to force a good result against this All Blacks team.
The All Blacks have been averaging 21 Turn Overs conceded per game. They would still be concerned about the 15 TOC in this game as well as the 11 Penalties conceded versus Tonga’s 7.
The stats confirm that Tonga won the battle at the breakdown winning 110 of 112 rucks (98%) against the ABs 72 from 77 (94%) and earning 10 TOW (6 by Forwards) against the ABs 6 (4 by Forwards).
Ball retention was paramount to Tonga’s game plan but the ABs put in an excellent tackling effort – making 153 tackles and missing only 15 (91%). Tonga 110/21 (84%).
Ruck involvement by the All Black Forward Pack as follows:
Remember:
- Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
- 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.
- 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.
As Tonga goes no further I have not collected data re their ruck involvement.
Comments on Individual Player Performance:
1. The ABs started the game putting pressure on the Tonga ball carriers and this continued throughout the game.
2. Forward’s Defensive Ruck involvements were 32% of their Total Ruck involvements. Wallabies were at 29% against England.
3. AB Backs contributed 20% of Total Ruck involvements with a commendable 30% Def Ruck component.
4. The AB Front Row contributed 36% of ruck involvements by AB Forwards. This is comparable to the effort by the Wallaby Front Row against England.
5. This Front Row ruck involvement was the same as that of the Back Row.
6. Cane and Whitelock were key contributors for rucks in Attack and Defense. Neither earned a TOW.
7. Read earned 2 TOW from his 4 Def Rucks involvements. 1TOW/2 DRI is the definition of a real menace. Of the other Forwards only O Franks and Retallick had 1 TOW each.
8. AB Locks are more involved in Def Rucks than their Wallaby counterparts – esp. Whitelock and Retallick.
9. Both Crockett and Retallick put in big rucking efforts from off the bench.
Comments on Team Involvement per 10 minutes:
1. The AB Forwards put in a dominant rucking effort for the opening 10 minutes with about 20% of their game total.
2. The ABs lifted when Read was Yellow Carded. This has become a feature of their game and one which the Wallabies struggle to match. In addition, the ABs hunger for the ball is remarkable – they generally get most of the loose balls. This aspect is often missing from the Wallabies.
3. This lift was particularly evident for the first 7 minutes of the 2nd half – when Read was still in the bin. Whitelock led the pack followed by Cane, O Franks and Crockett.
4. Ruck involvements for the 20 minutes after half-time were 33% of the game total. This was a period when Tonga was really testing the AB defence. Crocket and Retallick, fresh off the bench, threw themselves into the fray.
5.
As the numbers show, in the 2nd half there was a 12% lift in ruck involvements – despite Read being in the sin bin for 7 of the 41 minutes.
Implications for the Wallabies?
1. Wallaby Front Row needs to maintain the increased ruck work rate shown against England. Particularly in Def Ruck involvement to counter the strong efforts by the AB Locks.
2. Wallabies need to match the AB hunger for the ball.
3. Beware of the ABs lift should their number get reduced by YCs.
4. Wallabies need to match the AB effort off the bench.
5. A Wallaby Back Row which included Hooper and Pocock is capable of out-muscling the AB back Row at the breakdown.
6. Cane was the best ball-carrying AB Forward (9 carries for 28m; 2 CB/6DB/1OL).
7. Is a McCaw/Cane combination likely to be used to counter a Pocock/Hooper combination?
8. Read is the key to the AB lineout. Against Tonga he had 5LOW/1LOS. Romano, Whitelock and Retallick had only 3LOW between them. (Cane also1 LOW).
Expecting to win against Wales to help make a Wallaby v All Black final possible.
). We'll also be the Pool top-qualifier with the biggest win over the second qualifier (20 points c.f. Sethfricka's 18, Straya's nine & whatever Oirland win or lose by). If we'd been offered that a month ago I reckon we'd have taken it.