Wallabies v All Blacks, Saturday 19th August, ANZ Stadium Sydney

[Braveheart81]

Just to add to FF (Folau Fainga'a)'s excellent ruck stats, one of the big reasons for the large discrepancies between the front rower ruck stats is that the Wallabies carried a lot more than their NZ counterparts.

The props had 26 carries v 11 for NZ
Front row combined, 33 v 15

So there's a bit more to it than just the ruck stats - but they do shed light on what strategies were employed by each coach

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more effective tactic

Great stats FF (Folau Fainga'a).
The biggest disparity in the stats seems to be that the top tackler for the AB's was Cane with 23 made.
The wallaby highest tackler was Hanigan with 8.
I don't know what to make of this.
Anyone got a comment?
Were Canes tackles dominant / behind the gain line / result in a turnover?

Any thoughts?

In such a lopsided game some of the stats become pretty misleading.

We dominated possession mostly because we allowed the All Blacks to score so easily on multiple occasions.

If we miss less tackles in the first half particularly, the All Blacks hold onto the ball longer and a lot of those stats start to even up.

 

[Froggy]

This will get plenty of criticism, but given Hanigan topped both the tackle count (with none missed) and the ruck involvement, perhaps he wasn't as anonymous as many here (including me) were suggesting.
Certainly not much impact, but at least getting in and doing some work, unlike some others. Given that, his ability in the lineout and the fact that neither RHP nor Fardy are in the squad, I would have him at 6 in Dunedin.

 

[barbarian]

This is a pretty basic analysis, but some of these failings are just appalling. The last one especially.

http://ruggamatrix.com/mongrel-dogs-do-not-run-in-a-pack/

 

[Derpus]

The first one irks me more. a) dive on the ball. Bloody rugby 101 first thing you learn when you are 7 years old. None of this 'toeing it to the deadliest back 3 in world rugby' bullshit. b) instead of kicking it out on your weak foot a meter or two from the sideline with plenty of time, pass it to your outside man. Jesus. c) if you do a bloody awful kick, at least make sure you get up the field to prevent a quick throw, particularly against the AB's who love it.

Knew it was going to be a long night the second that sequence of play came about.

 

[ForceFan]

Surprised by Hanigan's efforts, maybe we don't know everything

Me too. He does keep 'busy' but doesn't do a lot of the hard stuff.
Perhaps I need to review my definition of "impact" to exclude just joining a group waiting for things to happen rather than making things happen.

 

[ForceFan]

Great stats FF (Folau Fainga'a).
The biggest disparity in the stats seems to be that the top tackler for the AB's was Cane with 23 made.
The wallaby highest tackler was Hanigan with 8.
I don't know what to make of this.
Anyone got a comment?
Were Canes tackles dominant / behind the gain line / result in a turnover?
Any thoughts?

I particularly liked Cane's game so will comment.
His speed of support was very impressive and he's constantly hitting rucks rather than simply arriving at rucks.
He plays bigger than his 103kg.
I'm still looking at the most frequent pairings or pods being used by the ABs.
They are more organised than the Wallabies in their support play - whether if following their own ball carriers or impacting ours.
By comparison the Wallabies were an inconsistent rabble without cohesion.
It's hard to believe that most of them had been together for 4 weeks.

 

[cyclopath]

Me too. He does keep 'busy' but doesn't do a lot of the hard stuff.
Perhaps I need to review my definition of "impact" to exclude just joining a group waiting for things to happen rather than making things happen.

I imagine it gets a bit tricky if you start trying to measure "making things happen" as it moves from measurable things to interpretation?

 

[Micheal]

Remember:

1. Early means 1st or 2nd 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.

Interesting to see you credited Stephen Moore with 16/16 impact with his ruck involvement.

There was a passage in the first half where he tried to enter two consecutive rucks near the All Blacks tryline and simply fell over / fell onto the ruck and slid off. The only impact I could identify with those involvements is that it resulted in the ABs turning the ball over and a change of possession.

Given that and my earlier observations of Stephen Moore I immediately sent my friend a text:

"Mate, Moore's clean out work is criminal"

To which he replied:

"Holy shit I was just about to send you the same thing. Did you just see those two rucks?"

To be clear, I'm not challenging all your stats as you put a huge amount of work in each test match, and I think everyone at GAGR really appreciates it. That being said, your representation of Moore's work really surprised me. I honestly thought it was the worst game I've ever seen him play.

Without intending to sound crass, I went to high school with a boy who had legs of uneven length. One was a couple inches longer than the other.

As a result, when he ran he had a considerable limp and had to keep one leg straighter than the other. This had a huge effect on his balance and when he played rugby it only took the slightest nudge / change of direction to send him barreling over.

Stephen's movement in the last year or so has really reminded me of watching my mate play rugby.

He appears utterly mechanical and in need of a good oiling. I really hope he moves on soon because his body simply isn't up to it.

 

[ForceFan]

This will get plenty of criticism, but given Hanigan topped both the tackle count (with none missed) and the ruck involvement, perhaps he wasn't as anonymous as many here (including me) were suggesting.
Certainly not much impact, but at least getting in and doing some work, unlike some others. Given that, his ability in the lineout and the fact that neither RHP nor Fardy are in the squad, I would have him at 6 in Dunedin.

Not so much criticism as comment.

A Squire or a Kaino or a Scott Fardy he isn't.

A No 6 needs to make his presence felt around the rucks - with a lot more mongrel, be another option at the line out and be a line breaking ball carrier.

Hanigan had only 3 carries for zero gain.
A tackle count of 8 is nothing to shout about compared to the opposition.

I reckon Hanigan has the potential to be such a good Test level but he's been selected too early.

Rodd Haylett-Petty is recovering from some shoulder surgery so is not an option but has height (3cm) and weight (8kg) advantages over Hanigan.

Players such as McMahon offer the impact and a bit of mongrel but is >10cm shorter and only weighs 100kg.

 

[Braveheart81]

Interesting to see you credited Stephen Moore with 16/16 impact with his ruck involvement.

There was a passage in the first half where he tried to enter two consecutive rucks near the All Blacks tryline and simply fell over / fell onto the ruck and slid off. The only impact I could identify with those involvements is that it resulted in the ABs turning the ball over and a change of possession.

That was certainly really clear early in the game. The first one, someone else made it to and we were also a little lucky with the amount of time Barnes gave us to clear out the player on the ball.

The second one we couldn't make up for Moore's error and gave away a penalty.

It would be interesting to have a ruck error count where we look at those situations where someone misses their cleanout and then how badly it costs us (do we retain possession, give away a penalty, get turned over etc.).

There is generally little margin for error and if that player misses their cleanout, we give away the ball or a penalty. Quite often that will be because the ineffective cleanout puts them in the way of the next person being able to make an effective cleanout and otherwise it's because no one else can arrive in time.

 

[ForceFan]

I imagine it gets a bit tricky if you start trying to measure "making things happen" as it moves from measurable things to interpretation?

I try very hard to keep my personal opinion out of these stats and work to the definitions as provided.

That being the case it's telling that Hanigan is the only Wallabies player who has been marked down for Impact on D Rucks.
To me this says that his arriving and doing little was very obvious.
Standing with mates and not looking at the opposition or not being braced for a potential cleanout means no impact.

There are many more players who arrive at rucks too late and hover when they should have stayed away and been available for a subsequent phase.

Some players just look lost around the breakdown. Kerevi didn't make a single ruck contact (and missed all 4 of his tackle attempts).
Ben Smith (who I rate as a full back rather than a winger) arrives and will occasionally even get engaged (when there are no other options) but I doubt if any of the Wallabies ever feel presence.

Cheika has made a comment that if players are no good at the breakdown then he'd rather they didn't get involved so they don't give away penalties.

 

[fatprop]

Me too. He does keep 'busy' but doesn't do a lot of the hard stuff.
Perhaps I need to review my definition of "impact" to exclude just joining a group waiting for things to happen rather than making things happen.

There were quite a few of him getting there ready, but not having to smash anyone

On one hand, he was getting there, but as the ABs are wonderful at not committing, he sometimes is just arse up, head up over the ball. But I wonder if he wasn't making that effort, would the ABs have pounced?

 

[Braveheart81]

That being the case it's telling that Hanigan is the only Wallabies player who has been marked down for Impact on D Rucks.
To me this says that his arriving and doing little was very obvious.
Standing with mates and not looking at the opposition or not being braced for a potential cleanout means no impact.

There are many more players who arrive at rucks too late and hover when they should have stayed away and been available for a subsequent phase.

That is one ruck isn't it?

Maybe your definition of impact needs to be made stricter such that it is a stat that players don't get credited for as often but clearly it needs to be applied consistently across the board.

 

[ForceFan]

Stats are only an indicator, not the be all and end all.

The Wallabies were woeful and no amount of stat will mask that.

Totally agree Ulrich.

Steve Hansen would have been incensed with the ABs not keeping the Wallabies under the hammer.

Nobody in the Wallabies camp should take any comfort from the points in the second half.

I'm happy to gather the ruck stats -as they are not available from anywhere else - but they don't tell the full story. They should be read in conjunction with all other available data.

The tackle count disparity is telling - the Wallabies simply offered no resistance to the ABs in the 1st half.

I hope they can get their act together before the games against the Bokkes.

 

[ForceFan]

This is a pretty basic analysis, but some of these failings are just appalling. The last one especially.

http://ruggamatrix.com/mongrel-dogs-do-not-run-in-a-pack/

Only a basic analysis is necessary tp show up the faults.
The Wallabies showed a total lack of urgency.
This is not something new - we so rarely head the loose ball get count.
There appeared to be a lack of hunger for the ball.
Nobody was taking control or on-field leadership of the defensive structures
There really was no defensive effort as shown by the disparity in the tackle count - which is a lot more than just the difference in Possession.
By contrast the ABs are constantly presenting themselves for the ball and to be involved.
People talk about the benefits of team cohesion and players knowing each other.
There seemed to be no cohesion despite 4 weeks in camp and many playing together all Super Rugby season.

 

[barbarian]

I really wonder if the 'camp' model is now more or less defunct. We've now had two years where the Wallabies have had an extended period in camp, and both times have produced totally inept performances in their first game back.

If I were Cheika I'd seriously think about a return to trial matches, even with the injury risk that brings.
.

 

[Quick Hands]

They did empty their bench, but it's hardly a shit bench, and they're usually the ones finishing with a wet sail, not a damp squib. I don't think the Wallaby comeback in any way mitigates the shite that preceded it, but I don't think it should be completely dismissed either. I think it's reasonable to look at any situation and try to see how every facet played out - scrum, lineout, breakdown work, tackles made / missed, line breaks, etc.... Some things did work, most did not, but to ignore the ones that did is silly. Build on them and fucking fix the ones that were utter crap.

I made no comment as to the quality of their bench. I pointed out that they emptied it quite early and this led to a loss of rhythm to the team. Doubt they would have subbed Crotty at the 45 minute mark for example if they weren't so far ahead.

EDIT: And I never dismissed the comeback, just think that it needs to be kept in perspective.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not so much criticism as comment.

A Squire or a Kaino or a Scott Fardy he isn't.

A No 6 needs to make his presence felt around the rucks - with a lot more mongrel, be another option at the line out and be a line breaking ball carrier.

Hanigan had only 3 carries for zero gain.
A tackle count of 8 is nothing to shout about compared to the opposition.

I reckon Hanigan has the potential to be such a good Test level but he's been selected too early.

Rodd Haylett-Petty is recovering from some shoulder surgery so is not an option but has height (3cm) and weight (8kg) advantages over Hanigan.

Players such as McMahon offer the impact and a bit of mongrel but is >10cm shorter and only weighs 100kg.

Sounds like Higgers to me.

 

[Quick Hands]

Hanigan had only 3 carries for zero gain.
A tackle count of 8 is nothing to shout about compared to the opposition.

I reckon Hanigan has the potential to be such a good Test level but he's been selected too early.

I agree with this.

Interestingly, the same people who fast-tracked Hanigan and Horwitzand didn't want Michael Ala'atoa told Angus Crichton to come back when he was 23.

Go figure.

 

[cyclopath]

I agree with this.

Interestingly, the same people who fast-tracked Hanigan and Horwitzand didn't want Michael Ala'atoa told Angus Crichton to come back when he was 23.

Go figure.

I think Hanigan will be a long term good punt (too early for Test rugby right now though), Horwitz has not kicked on so much but could be a solid Super player longer term (probably a miss overall), Ala'alatoa was not developed well in NSW and has clearly thrived in the Crusaders environment (clearly a miss), and Crichton has not played rugby since school so who knows, maybe he'd have been awesome, or maybe like quite a few other good schoolboys he mightn't?
So overall, yeah, they're not averaging well!