What’s Wrong with the Wallabies?
Player Selection – No 7 - Open Side Flanker
The Wallabies have just lost to England 3:0 and there’s been plenty of discussion of what went wrong – especially after the good showing in the RWC.
After Round 17, I thought it was time to update statistics for what has always been one of the key positions for the Wallabies.
Most pundits seem to rank
George Smith as the “best” No 7 who has played for the Wallabies. George’s game was built on rock solid work at the breakdown, fearsome and effective tackling and strong ball carries.
I gathered some stats from George Smith’s
Sydney Test against the All Blacks in 2008:
- Rucks: 37 Total – 16 Attack/21 Defence;
- Tackles: 21 Tackles;
- Carries: 7 carries for 35m – 5m/carry;
- 1 Clean Break; and
- Nil Penalties Conceded.
George Smith averaged a
Try every 12 Tests.
My memories of George Smith in Test rugby are all about strength over the ball, bone-crunching tackles, crashing ball carries and Turn Overs Won at critical stages in the match.
I don’t recall X-factor ever being mentioned in regard to George Smith.
What Super Rugby form has been shown by our current group of No 7s?
DEFENSIVE IMPACT
Ruck Involvements
Hodgson, Gill and Pocock have similar levels of Ruck Involvements, with Pocock averaging the highest level of Defence Ruck Involvements.
McMahon and Hooper average about 25% fewer Total Ruck Involvements and about 60% of Pocock’s of Defence Ruck Involvements and 20% less than Hodgson or Gill..
Q. But isn’t that just because some teams over-commit to the breakdown which boosts some player’s numbers?
This plot certainly shows that the Rebels have averaged the most Ruck Involvements and the Waratahs the least.
The ±5-10% range in team Ruck Involvements DOES NOT account for the 25% difference in Ruck Involvements of the No 7s.
Q. But what about each No 7s contribution as a % of their team’s Ruck Involvements?
This plot shows that Pocock and Gill have the highest % of team Ruck Involvements.
Hodgson’s efforts have been greatly missed at the Western Force.
McMahon and Hooper have the lowest % of team Ruck Involvements.
When Pocock was injured McMahon was chosen over Gill as his replacement.
Clearly the level of Ruck Involvements IS NOT a principal focus for selection.
Turn Overs Won (TOW)
One measure of effectiveness is the number of Defence Ruck Involvements per TOW.
David Pocock is clearly the best pilfering No 7 in Australian Rugby – closely followed by Liam Gill.
Q. But some of these players concede lots of penalties!
No 7’s usually concede penalties from putting pressure on the opposition’s ball carriers.
A lot of strategic benefit can be obtained by slowing down the opposition’s ball movement and/or gaining possession. A Penalty is really only a problem if it results in points for the opposition. I have no data to confirm the results of these penalties. However, my observations are that all of these No 7s are cunning operators, who have adapted to the law changes around the breakdown and who usually put most pressure on when a penalty doesn’t immediately result in points for the opposition.
Even if the Penalties Conceded are subtracted from the TOW, Pocock still has a net gain of close to 2 TOW/game and Gill 1 TOW/game.
Both Hooper and Hodgson still end up with slightly more TOW than PenC.
Neither Hooper nor Hodgson has drawn a Yellow Card in 2016.
Does anybody have a suggestion as to how a player’s rating should be adjusted for a Yellow Card? Or a Red Card? Either could cost the game.
Clearly Turn Overs Won IS NOT a principal focus for selection.
Tackling
Matt Hodgson has been the leading tackler in Super Rugby up until Round 16 when Sam Cane (164 from 14 games) finally edged in front of Hodgson’s 162 tackles. Hodgson established this bench mark in only 11 games – before the need for shoulder reconstruction. He averaged 15 tackles per game; 40-60% more than the other Australian No7s.
Behind Hodgson is Michael Hooper (153 tackles from 15 games), Sean McMahon (127/14), David Pocock (94/10) and Liam Gill (107/11).
Tackling MAYBE is a principal focus for selection.
OFFENSIVE IMPACT
Note: For simplicity, there is rounding involved in some of these numbers.
Michael Hooper, by a narrow margin is the best ball carrying No 7 amongst the Australian Super Rugby Teams:
· He Off Loads or Passes 88% of the time;
· Has the 2nd highest Defenders Beaten per match and averages 1 Clean Break;
· Provides a Try Assist every 5 games; and
· Scores a Try every 3 games.
Liam Gill is also a sound ball carrier:
· He also Off Loads or Passes 88% of the time;
· Averages 1 Clean Break and 1 Defender Beaten per game; and
· Provides a Try Assist every 10 games; and
· Scores a Try every 2.5 games.
Sean McMahon is also a good ball carrier:
· Generally takes the ball into contact – Passing only 20% of the time.
· Has the highest number of Defenders Beaten per game and averages 1 Clean Break.
· Zero Off Loads and Try Assists; and
· Scores a Try every 10 games.
David Pocock has less impact as a ball carrier:
· Averages 1 Defender Beaten per game;
· Passes the ball 88% of the time;
· Provides a Try Assist every 10 games; and
· Scores a Try every 5 games.
Matt Hodgson has the least impact as a ball carrier:
· Safely takes the ball into contact – passing 50% of the time:
· Provides a Try Assist every 10 games; and
· Scores a Try every 5 games.
Hodgson is not available for test selection in 2016.
Clearly offensive effort IS a principal focus for selection.
X-FACTOR (??)
I have yet to uncover or derive any empirical scale for X-Factor.
X-Factor is not apparent in the key impact tables above.
However, I’ve used my best efforts to attribute an X-Factor rating based upon the comments made on a wide range of blogs during the 2016 season.
Michael Hooper has HEAPS of X-Factor.
Sean McMahon has LOTS of X-Factor.
Apparently, Pocock, Gill and Hodgson have decreasing levels of X-Factor.
X-Factor appears to be a principal focus for selection.
Comments:
1. The main criteria for selection appear to be Offensive Effort and X-Factor with some input from Tackling.
2.
Am I missing other important selection criteria?
3. I’d be interested to have the weighting system explained as to why/how Defensive Impact gets so heavily discounted.
As shown by the Wallabies loss to the All Blacks at the RWC and against England in June, it was the Wallabies Defensive Impact that was found to be lacking.
4. It’s no surprise to me that some players decide to play rugby overseas as it appears that no matter how well they play in Super Rugby they are not going to get selected in the Wallabies unless as a last resort (e.g. Gill) or they are asked to play out of position in order to accommodate other players (e.g. Pocock).
5. Call me old fashioned, but I think that a sound basis for Wallabies selection should start at selecting the form player/s in each position from Super Rugby. Strong combinations should also be taken into account.
6. The Wallabies Coach’s job, in the very limited time that he has available, is then to mold these already top performing players/combinations into a winning team.
