The Wallabies Thread

[ForceFan]

It may be useful to move to the Tight 5 with an initial look at Locks.

Same data as before plus Line Outs Won (on own throw) & Line Out Stolen.

I've also added average minutes played per game as some of these players rarely play for the full 80 minutes. The stats are homogenised to be average per 80 minutes played as it gives some level of comparison and some idea of work rate.

Douglas played for parts of 3 games (160 minutes) after his knee recon..

In Test matches I reckon a Lock should be fairly useful in the Line Out and it's preferable if they can play the full 80 minutes if necessary as Locks can be a bit brittle at times.

I don't have the full suite of stats for the RWC but have some limited average stats (for 80 minutes) for some key players.

ALL BLACKS
Brodie Retallick
Ruck Involvements - 37 Total (31 Attack/6 Defence)
TOW - 0.9/game (7 DRI/TOW)

Sam Whitelock
Ruck Involvements - 37 Total (30 Attack/7 Defence)
TOW - 0.6/game (12 DRI/TOW)

WALLABIES
Rob Simmons
Ruck Involvements - 24 Total (21 Attack/3 Defence)
TOW - Nil

Kane Douglas
Ruck Involvements - 25 Total (22 Attack/3 Defence)
TOW - 0.7/game (4 DRI/TOW)

PS. I know these are busy tables but they get a lot of data into a small space.
PPS. Have edited these table with minor changes only.

 

[Bullrush]

But what does that even mean? He's not an 8. He's not a 7. He's not a 6. But he's fucking out there every game so he must be SOMETHING.

Sometimes I think we really get too bogged down in the number on a players back. It isn't the 1980s any more. Outside of scrum time, players roles are becoming more and more fluid.

The All Blacks are a prime example - all 8 forwards are expected to be good ball carriers, and operate in a backline. All 7 backs can hold their own in tight, and make big hits when necessary.

I reject your notion that Hooper is somehow a worse defender than those stated. I accept that may appear to be true based on those stats, but as always they don't tell the whole story. Hooper misses tackles because he gets into positions that other players can't - flying up on kick-chase, for example.

Any cursorary viewing of a Wallaby game from the last 12 months would show he leads our defensive line, and makes 2-3 big, inspirational hits a game. There is a reason he polls so high in 'player's player' counts, and defence is a huge part.

He also does run the ball in tight a lot, contrary to what people say. Look at the try he scored in the third test against the Poms, running off Nick Phipps in the 3rd channel from the ruck. He's scored the same try for the Tahs a few times this year, and also frequently takes hit-ups in the channels around the ruck.

He is a problematic player, because he doesn't fit into a role easily. People like to amplify his flaws, while ignoring the myriad of ways he is one of the best players in the world.

I like Jed Holloway, I like Curtis Browning, but IMO they don't hold a candle to Hooper at the moment, and I don't care what position you are talking about. I genuinely believe he is more physical than both of them.
.

Don't know why you think he's not a 7. Isn't that where he's played pretty much all of his pro rugby? All of his Test rugby?

The All Blacks ARE the prime example. How often do you see Kaino playing at 8 or Read at 6 or 7 or Cane anywhere else but 7? Not very often at all. On a few occasions, McCaw played 8 but usually he would switch there during a game after Cane or someone came on. In fact, guys who are genuine options at multiple back row positions have struggled to hold AB spots eg. Messam, Vito, Thompson.

Hooper is not an 8

 

[Highlander35]

Kaino for the blues, Messam for the Chiefs and Vito for the Canes all regularly played 8, but all played 2nd fiddle to Read and ended up at 6 time and time again.

Obviously 8->6 is a little bit different than 7->8, but the principle largely seems the same, if the Backrow remains complementary, then the numbers on the back don't really matter as long as the 8thman doesn't bloody fumble the ball at the back of the scrum (up yours U20s coaches, up yours)

 

[RebelYell]

In the absence of a dominant, physical Number Eight, I would love to see Lopeti return to the role as he has the physicality to make an impact at Test level, even if he's not fit enough to contribute for 80

 

[Bullrush]

Kaino for the blues, Messam for the Chiefs and Vito for the Canes all regularly played 8, but all played 2nd fiddle to Read and ended up at 6 time and time again.

Obviously 8->6 is a little bit different than 7->8, but the principle largely seems the same, if the Backrow remains complementary, then the numbers on the back don't really matter as long as the 8thman doesn't bloody fumble the ball at the back of the scrum (up yours U20s coaches, up yours)

Right...for their clubs they might have played their secondary position but at Test level - not really. And we were talking about the All Blacks.

 

[Braveheart81]

Don't know why you think he's not a 7. Isn't that where he's played pretty much all of his pro rugby? All of his Test rugby?

The All Blacks ARE the prime example. How often do you see Kaino playing at 8 or Read at 6 or 7 or Cane anywhere else but 7? Not very often at all. On a few occasions, McCaw played 8 but usually he would switch there during a game after Cane or someone came on. In fact, guys who are genuine options at multiple back row positions have struggled to hold AB spots eg. Messam, Vito, Thompson.

Hooper is not an 8

The main reason we are playing Hooper and Pocock together in the same starting XV is because we don't have an outstanding option at number 8. Pocock and Hooper have shared the traditional number 8 duties, with Pocock doing a good job at the back of the scrum etc.

If Jed Holloway continues to improve he could certainly put himself in the frame. He had an outstanding season up until he got injured. As others have said though, he made a huge amount of run metres making breaks out wide. He wasn't used a lot in tight.

The idea that Curtis Browning should get selected at number 8 for the Wallabies now at the expense of Hooper is lunacy. Browning was a decent performer in a poor team in Super Rugby but nothing more. Nothing he has shown so far suggests he is ready for test rugby and certainly not to push Hooper or Pocock out of the starting XV.

 

[wamberal]

In the absence of a dominant, physical Number Eight, I would love to see Lopeti return to the role as he has the physicality to make an impact at Test level, even if he's not fit enough to contribute for 80

He might have the muscle, but I regret to say that he seems to lack either the brains or the heart. Maybe both.

 

[Gnostic]

It may be useful to move to the Tight 5 with an initial look at Locks.



.

Do you have some stats on maul defence and attack? This is an area I expect Mumm and Skelton to be dominant (maul defence) and Carter (attack)

 

[Brumby Runner]

FF (Folau Fainga'a), you do a bloody terrific job with your stats, but sometimes I have a bit of trouble reconciling some of them with my own observations/impressions.

With respect to the locks, can you tell me what games you have used to formulate the stats? For instance, have you included the last round of Super Rugby games yet? If so, how does Rory Arnold's gallop up field in the lead up to a try get counted? I would have thought it might have been a CB, but I note he doesn't rate in that stat. Maybe a case of rounding down?

On face value, there's not a lot between most of these players, but with such small numbers it can sometimes be a bit misleading. Again, for instance, LOS are all similarly small numbers, but the difference between 0.5 and 0.1 is 5 to 1. Could be a decisive difference in skills over a protracted period.

Are you able to clarify for me?

 

[ForceFan]

Do you have some stats on maul defence and attack? This is an area I expect Mumm and Skelton to be dominant (maul defence) and Carter (attack)

I have no stats on mauls as none are generally available.

I gather the Ruck Involvement stats as they are not available anywhere else.

The remainder come from ESPN Scrum or the SANZAAR Suoper Rugby site.
There appears to be good agreement between these two site.
IMO FoxSports stats are rubbish but that's in keeping with most things on FS.

 

[Bullrush]

The main reason we are playing Hooper and Pocock together in the same starting XV is because we don't have an outstanding option at number 8. Pocock and Hooper have shared the traditional number 8 duties, with Pocock doing a good job at the back of the scrum etc.

If Jed Holloway continues to improve he could certainly put himself in the frame. He had an outstanding season up until he got injured. As others have said though, he made a huge amount of run metres making breaks out wide. He wasn't used a lot in tight.

The idea that Curtis Browning should get selected at number 8 for the Wallabies now at the expense of Hooper is lunacy. Browning was a decent performer in a poor team in Super Rugby but nothing more. Nothing he has shown so far suggests he is ready for test rugby and certainly not to push Hooper or Pocock out of the starting XV.

As I mentioned originally, my suggestions on 8 were purely going off the stats ForceFan provided so I'm not fussed about who you put there.

I just think that Pocock is the best No.7 in the world so you play him there and find an 8. Hooper is good 7 but IMO, he's not even close to Pocock and I think you lose a bit by playing the world's best out of position to fit in a guy who is good.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The ESPN Stats align with the Vodacom Rugby App. Those are supplied by Opta so pretty reliable.

 

[Braveheart81]

As I mentioned originally, my suggestions on 8 were purely going off the stats ForceFan provided so I'm not fussed about who you put there.

I just think that Pocock is the best No.7 in the world so you play him there and find an 8. Hooper is good 7 but IMO, he's not even close to Pocock and I think you lose a bit by playing the world's best out of position to fit in a guy who is good.

What are we losing in Pocock's game by playing him at 8? His focus is still heavily on the breakdown and based on the some of the games played with Hooper is more effective because of Hooper's dominant tackling behind the advantage line.

If we swapped the numbers on their shirts, would what they're doing on the field be any different?

Has Pocock's test match rugby been worse when wearing 8?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Pocock is a hellava better 7 than he is as an 8

 

[Braveheart81]

Pocock is a hellava better 7 than he is as an 8

Please tell me exactly what he has been doing differently in general play when playing with a number 8 on his back rather than 7.

 

[Bullrush]

Please tell me exactly what he has been doing differently in general play when playing with a number 8 on his back rather than 7.

LOL...exactly?! Well, in the 7th min of the 2nd game of the RWC just after the 24th sec - LOL

Look, it's just my opinion. I don't think he is as big an impact at 8 as he does at 7 and I don't think anyone would rate him as one of the top No.8's in world rugby. I might be wrong but Pocock's name isn't the first to come to mind when people talk about the best 8's in the world.

And I don't think that Hooper is that good that you need to make such a radical adjustment to move the No.1 in the world to accomodate him.

 

[RebelYell]

Thinking radically, could Skelton be transformed into an 8?

 

[Gagger]

LOL.exactly?! Well, in the 7th min of the 2nd game of the RWC just after the 24th sec - LOL

Look, it's just my opinion. I don't think he is as big an impact at 8 as he does at 7 and I don't think anyone would rate him as one of the top No.8's in world rugby. I might be wrong but Pocock's name isn't the first to come to mind when people talk about the best 8's in the world.

And I don't think that Hooper is that good that you need to make such a radical adjustment to move the No.1 in the world to accomodate him.

The point is there isn't a world class 8 to slot in and effectively push Hooper to the bench. The ones you've named haven't blazed it at Super let alone international.

So while the Pooper is compromised positionally, it's still a better compromise than most other options, so far.

 

[Braveheart81]

LOL.exactly?! Well, in the 7th min of the 2nd game of the RWC just after the 24th sec - LOL

Look, it's just my opinion. I don't think he is as big an impact at 8 as he does at 7 and I don't think anyone would rate him as one of the top No.8's in world rugby. I might be wrong but Pocock's name isn't the first to come to mind when people talk about the best 8's in the world.

And I don't think that Hooper is that good that you need to make such a radical adjustment to move the No.1 in the world to accomodate him.

Realistically Hooper and Pocock are both performing what are considered traditional aspects of the 7 and 8 roles.

If you were to just talk about the best backrowers in World Rugby certainly Pocock and most likely Hooper would appear on most people's lists.

I think people are getting overly caught up with the number on a player's back and what they consider the traditional jobs of a position rather than evaluating what the player is actually doing on the field and whether that has really changed based on the number they are wearing.

We're working with a pretty small data set but Pocock was our best player or close to it in most of the matches he played number 8 last year so I don't see how it can be argued he was less effective.

The number of turnovers and forced penalties against England in the RWC must be close to his most in a test match.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Please tell me exactly what he has been doing differently in general play when playing with a number 8 on his back rather than 7.

See Bullrush's reply.

It always remains amusing to me that you cannot see that Poey is a better 7 than Hooper