Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements - Wallabies v Pumas - Perth

Quite an amazing win considering that the Wallabies had only 33% Possession (27%/40%) and 32% Territory (24%/43%).

After the Wallabies opened with 3 tries in 21 minutes, the Pumas countered with a high intensity game with 36 Offloads (Wallabies 7); 186 carries for 611m (Wallabies 70 carries for 381m) and won 95% of their rucks. The Wallabies were forced to make 168 tackles (31 missed – 82%) against the Pumas 64 tackles (17 missed – 73%).

Despite the excellent conditions, both sides suffered from a high error rate; Handling Errors – Wallabies 19, Pumas 22.

This game had 17 scrums and 29 Lineouts and 166 Rucks (with ~340 Ruck Involvements). The breakdown continues to be an important part of the game of Rugby.
I'm interested in what other G&Gaggers get from these stats and how they support or otherwise their observations from the Test.

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.

1. Hooper topped the Ruck Involvements for the Wallabies.
2. A similar individual involvement profile as used against the Boks, with Hooper and Pocock putting most pressure on the Pumas ball carriers. Support from McMahon, Coleman, Sio and Slipper.
3. Only McMahon had a significant impact off the bench.
4. Pocock’s 35-minute effort is worthy of comment. Pocock started feeling and flexing his left hand just prior to a scrum at 10 mins. At that stage he had made 2 Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs) and Hooper had 3. By 15 minutes Pocock was going into the breakdown with his right hand only and tackling with his left was causing him heaps of grief. He couldn't get the hand looked at by Doc as in two stoppages the Doc was looking after Hooper & Coleman. By 30 mins Pocock had made 16 TRIs (5A/11D) and Hooper had made 8 TRIs (2A/6D). Pocock with a broken hand had 14 TRIs in the same time as Hooper had 5TRIs. Pocock came off at 35 minutes with 19 TRIs (6A/13D); didn't have any TOW (but a bit hard with only 1 hand) and still made 12 tackles (none missed).
   Pocock finished only 4 TRIs behind Hooper who played for 81 minutes (24RIs [11A/12D] & 20 Tackles/4 missed; 2TOW). The Wallabies will greatly miss David Pocock's defensive efforts. It will be interesting to see who steps up for the Wallabies.
5. The Pumas dominated the breakdown for much of the game earning an impressive 14 TOW from only 32 Defence Rucks. Big TOW efforts by Creevy (3), Desio (3) and Matera (2). The Pumas Backs earned 4 TOW (from only 11 Defence Rucks. The Wallabies earned 5 TOW from 60 Defence Rucks.
6. Most RIs by Backs - Wallabies: Hodge - 10T (7A/3D) - 1 TOW; Folau - 7T (6A/1D); Foley - 7T (7A/0D)
7. Most RIs by Backs - Pumas: Iglesias - 20T (18A/2D); Moroni - 15T (12A/3D) - 2TOW; Amorosino - 13T/A; Cordero - 11T (9A/2D)

Ruck Involvements over Time

1. For the Wallabies the bulk of the ruck work in the first half was carried by Pocock and Hooper. McMahon and Hooper maintained the pressure in the 2nd half.
2. There was a significant drop-off in ruck involvements in the with the focus on maintaining the defensive line.
3. Apart from Mcmahon, there was little ruck impact off the Wallabies bench.
4. Strong ruck involvements from the Pumas Tight 5.
5. The Pumas bench were very involved in the last 20 minutes.

++Continued in the next post due to image constraints.

 

[Upthenuts]

Yes - and I didn't like the result when they warmed up on us.

Youd be hoping the ABs play the pumas away, and the springbok a week before you guys get a shot in sydney, even the supermen in Black wouldnt like that lead up for a blediloe test in australia

 

[ForceFan]

Ruck Involvements by Main Player Groups

1. Fairly even ruck contribution from Pumas player groups.
2. Pumas Back Row mostly supporting ball carriers.
3. High work rate shown by the Wallabies Back Row.
4. Some improvement in involvements from the Wallabies Front Row.
5. Fairly subdued involvement from Arnold and Simmons.

1. The bulk of the work to slow down/disrupt the Pumas ball retention was carried by the Back Row.
2. Pumas Backs about 3 x the workload of their Wallabies counterparts.

Numbers at the Breakdown

1. The Wallabies won 36/43 rucks (84%).
2. The Wallabies generally committed more players (av. 2.5) in support of their ball carrier. (Average for Aussie SR2016).
3. The Pumas won 117/123 rucks (95%).
4. The Pumas committed fewer players (av. 2.1) in support of their ball carrier with a desire to offload whenever possible.
5. With only 33% Possession the Wallabies had 20 kicks from hand.
6. The Pumas with 67% Possession showed a stronger focus on ball retention and had only 15 kicks from hand.

1. The Wallabies averaged only 0.5 players per Defence Ruck.
2. This is highest level of standing off defence rucks that I have seen from the Wallabies, and most likely reflects Pocock’s departure before half time.
3. The Pumas averaged 0.7 players per Defence Ruck (av. For Aussie Super Rugby 2016).
4. The Pumas’ energy and commitment at the breakdown was impressive.

It will be interesting to see the players in the squad, which travels to Pretoria, London and Auckland, how the breakdown strategy may change and how the Wallabies address the absence of Pocock.

Pocock has averaged 40 Total Ruck Involvements (21 Attack/19 Defence) for 80 mins played in his 5 Tests in 2016.
This is ~10 Def Ruck Involvements (DRIs) more than any other Wallabies player.
It represents nearly 30% of the average DRI's per Test in 2016.

 

[Scrubber2050]

FF (Folau Fainga'a)
Excellent as usual

Thanks for taking the time

Scrub

 

[Brumby Runner]

FF (Folau Fainga'a), the stats provide some intriguing insights into how the game has played out. The obvious indicators are that the Aus backrow is much more involved in rucks than any others. But within those stats, it is obvious that it is Pocock, Hooper and McMahon doing that work while Mumm was no more involved than some of the other forwards. As for the locks, it is clear that Coleman had a storming game while Simmons looks to have had a limited involvement in the tough stuff.

I realise that ruck involvements are not the be all and end all of players' involvements in a game, but when there are quite large discrepancies between players in equivalent positions it does raise questions about who might not be pulling their weight.

 

[dabiged]

Hey FF (Folau Fainga'a), Excellent analysis as usual.

One small correction (sub-editor must have missed it ) , title box on the "Wallabies Forwards - Ruck involvements" table in your first post says "Brisbane 2016".

 

[Strewthcobber]

Hi FF (Folau Fainga'a) - terrific as always.

Is there any chance you could roll in the tackler and ball carrier stats as well - which would give the total picture of work at the breakdown (I'm assuming you only count "ruck" stats at the moment).

Is it more complicated than that?

 

[ForceFan]

Hey FF (Folau Fainga'a), Excellent analysis as usual.

One small correction (sub-editor must have missed it ) , title box on the "Wallabies Forwards - Ruck involvements" table in your first post says "Brisbane 2016".

Bugger.....thnx

 

[Alex Sharpe]

Ruck Involvements - Wallabies v Pumas - Perth

Quite an amazing win considering that the Wallabies had only 33% Possession (27%/40%) and 32% Territory (24%/43%).

After the Wallabies opened with 3 tries in 21 minutes, the Pumas countered with a high intensity game with 36 Offloads (Wallabies 7); 186 carries for 611m (Wallabies 70 carries for 381m) and won 95% of their rucks. The Wallabies were forced to make 168 tackles (31 missed – 82%) against the Pumas 64 tackles (17 missed – 73%).

Despite the excellent conditions, both sides suffered from a high error rate; Handling Errors – Wallabies 19, Pumas 22.

This game had 17 scrums and 29 Lineouts and 166 Rucks (with ~340 Ruck Involvements). The breakdown continues to be an important part of the game of Rugby.
I'm interested in what other G&Gaggers get from these stats and how they support or otherwise their observations from the Test.

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.

View attachment 8497

View attachment 8498

1. Hooper topped the Ruck Involvements for the Wallabies.
2. A similar individual involvement profile as used against the Boks, with Hooper and Pocock putting most pressure on the Pumas ball carriers. Support from McMahon, Coleman, Sio and Slipper.
3. Only McMahon had a significant impact off the bench.
4. Pocock’s 35-minute effort is worthy of comment. Pocock started feeling and flexing his left hand just prior to a scrum at 10 mins. At that stage he had made 2 Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs) and Hooper had 3. By 15 minutes Pocock was going into the breakdown with his right hand only and tackling with his left was causing him heaps of grief. He couldn't get the hand looked at by Doc as in two stoppages the Doc was looking after Hooper & Coleman. By 30 mins Pocock had made 16 TRIs (5A/11D) and Hooper had made 8 TRIs (2A/6D). Pocock with a broken hand had 14 TRIs in the same time as Hooper had 5TRIs. Pocock came off at 35 minutes with 19 TRIs (6A/13D); didn't have any TOW (but a bit hard with only 1 hand) and still made 12 tackles (none missed).
   Pocock finished only 4 TRIs behind Hooper who played for 81 minutes (24RIs [11A/12D] & 20 Tackles/4 missed; 2TOW). The Wallabies will greatly miss David Pocock's defensive efforts. It will be interesting to see who steps up for the Wallabies.
5. The Pumas dominated the breakdown for much of the game earning an impressive 14 TOW from only 32 Defence Rucks. Big TOW efforts by Creevy (3), Desio (3) and Matera (2). The Pumas Backs earned 4 TOW (from only 11 Defence Rucks. The Wallabies earned 5 TOW from 60 Defence Rucks.

Ruck Involvements over Time


View attachment 8499

View attachment 8500

1. For the Wallabies the bulk of the ruck work in the first half was carried by Pocock and Hooper. McMahon and Hooper maintained the pressure in the 2nd half.
2. There was a significant drop-off in ruck involvements in the with the focus on maintaining the defensive line.
3. Apart from Mcmahon, there was little ruck impact off the Wallabies bench.
4. Strong ruck involvements from the Pumas Tight 5.
5. The Pumas bench were very involved in the last 20 minutes.

++Continued in the next post due to image constraints.

Outstanding Stuff FF (Folau Fainga'a), posts like this are what make GAGR what is is.

• Pocock will certainly create a void that will need to be filled. Mcmahons impact of the bench will hopefully do this.
• These stats just reinforce the idea that beyond the lineout, Rob Simmons just does not offer enough. Breakdown involvements are part of the bread and butter of a locks game.

 

[Braveheart81]

Simmons made 14 tackles and our lineout was good. Coleman had a storming game and was one of our best players and made 18.

I don't know if you can really say that a few less ruck involvements means Simmons didn't work hard enough. The difference in tackles and ruck involvements could have as much to do with the area of the field you are keeping to as much as anything else.

With so little ball it's a funny game to look at in terms of ruck involvements. Clearly Pocock is tasked with competing at as many defensive rucks as possible because that is his greatest strength. Aside from that though, our team was very much focused on fanning out and keeping the defensive line intact.

Coleman has been our best lock this year and something of a revelation at Wallaby level combining the core skills required for a lock with some excellent physicality.

I think Simmons has been better than Douglas though.

 

[ForceFan]

Hi FF (Folau Fainga'a) - terrific as always.

Is there any chance you could roll in the tackler and ball carrier stats as well - which would give the total picture of work at the breakdown (I'm assuming you only count "ruck" stats at the moment).

Is it more complicated than that?

G'day Strewthcobber

Highly recommend ESPN Scrum's stats or Vodacom phone App (which generally agree). FoxSports Stats appears to be rubbish.

However, happy to give the Top 5 Forwards for each team:

Wallabies - Ball Carries
Hooper - 2/31 (2CB, 1DB)
McMahon - 2/20 (1CB,DB)
TPN - 1/19 (1CB)
Kepu - 2/13 (1DB, 1 OL)
Mumm - 5/8 (1DB)

Wallabies - Tackles
Hooper - 20/4 missed - 80%
Coleman - 18/1 - 94%
Simmons - 14/2 - 86%
Kepu - 13/1 - 92%
Pocock & Moore - 12/0 - 100%

Pumas - Ball Carries
Herrara - 8/95
Isa - 21/79 (2CB, 3DB, 3OL)
Desio - 12/32 (1CB, 1DB)
Creevy - 15/32 (1DB,3OL)
Leguizamon - 11/27 (1DB, 2OL)

Pumas - Tackles
Desio - 8/0 - 100%
Matera - 6/0 - 100%
Leguizamon - 4/1 - 75%
Herrera - 3/0 - 100%
Allemanno, Sanatore, Isa - 3/1 - 67%.

 

[bigmac]

The inside balls from Quade for the two tries were excellent but he was better all around in the previous game against the Boks. By that I mean that his defense was more front on and direct and he underplayed his hand better holding onto the ball under pressure so that we could retain possession.
There were some worrying signs on the weekend for QC (Quade Cooper). The cross field kick when under pressure, a couple of high body grapple tackles targeting the ball rather than the man, the slight sidefield drift putting his outside runners under pressure and some hesitant tackle attempts.
As Kafe says over and over, he is very dangerous when he squares up and runs at the line. He creates space for those around him and has the vision to put the right person into a hole when this happens.
Steve Larkham and Cheik need to get him back on track for SA.
I do not see the point in bringing McCalman back into the fold. He is a good safe option but he has never excelled at test level. McMahon should start at 8, which is probably what Cheika had in mind for next year all along, with Timani or Mumm on the bench as the back row reserve, assuming Fardy comes back in to offset the loss of Pococks breakdown presence. I would opt for Timani as he at least deserves a few more chances to impress and he may just turn out to be much better than most think. McMahon, Hooper and Fardy are all 80 minute players and durable.

Agree quade is hot and cold. He did some good stuff in sat night but then lapsed into bad quade with the silly trick shots and the missed tackles. Still worth persevering with

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

G'day Strewthcobber

Highly recommend ESPN Scrum's stats or Vodacom phone App (which generally agree). FoxSports Stats appears to be rubbish.

However, happy to give the Top 5 Forwards for each team:

Wallabies - Ball Carries
Hooper - 2/31 (2CB, 1DB)
McMahon - 2/20 (1CB,DB)
TPN - 1/19 (1CB)
Kepu - 2/13 (1DB, 1 OL)
Mumm - 5/8 (1DB)

Wallabies - Tackles
Hooper - 20/4 missed - 80%
Coleman - 18/1 - 94%
Simmons - 14/2 - 86%
Kepu - 13/1 - 92%
Pocock & Moore - 12/0 - 100%

Pumas - Ball Carries
Herrara - 8/95
Isa - 21/79 (2CB, 3DB, 3OL)
Desio - 12/32 (1CB, 1DB)
Creevy - 15/32 (1DB,3OL)
Leguizamon - 11/27 (1DB, 2OL)

Pumas - Tackles
Desio - 8/0 - 100%
Matera - 6/0 - 100%
Leguizamon - 4/1 - 75%
Herrera - 3/0 - 100%
Allemanno, Sanatore, Isa - 3/1 - 67%.

Thanks FF (Folau Fainga'a) - do your ruck stats include the tackler and/or ball carrier?

So using Hooper as an example, his total work for the night would be 23+2+20 = 45?

 

[bigmac]

They were, but as much as they were great passes, the work of the other runners to create doubt in the defenders was as important if not more so.

Having guys in motion is the key. It was great to see Kerevi in motion on a decent line instead of waiting on the outside in a static backline playing pass the parcel laterally

Now if we can have that effort for more than ten minutes we might have something

Shit we may even get some kick return structure one day to give the catcher some decent options and create doubt

Kerevi was very solid. Some promising glimpses of his running capabilities

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[ForceFan]

Simmons made 14 tackles and our lineout was good. Coleman had a storming game and was one of our best players and made 18.

I don't know if you can really say that a few less ruck involvements means Simmons didn't work hard enough. The difference in tackles and ruck involvements could have as much to do with the area of the field you are keeping to as much as anything else.

Simmons played a full game and Coleman only 60 minutes.
Arnold did very little in his 20 minutes.

I still reckon that Tackling and Ruck Involvements should be taken as a given for Forwards. Hopefully pick & drives will continue to remain part of our game.
It is disappointing that some players with 110-120kg seem reluctant to apply this asset for the benefit of the team.
Involvement here frees up the linking players and Backs to do more ball carries.
If the ABs can be considered a bench mark then their Tight 5 is often more involved in the tough stuff than the Wallabies Tight 5.

I'm not trying to provide a full assessment of each players efforts. However, I did provide expanded SR2016 stats comparisons for each position in the Rugby Discussions:Wallabies 2016 and Onwards thread.
Currently providing Ruck Involvements which are not available from elsewhere.

Here's the picture of average Ruck Involvements for Locks in Tests so far in 2016.

As we know Cheika has swapped around a lot. These are stats per 80 minutes. Take the low equivalent game times with a grain of salt.
Note: The numbers generally inflate the contributions of players who have frequently come off the bench.

Similar numbers for Back Rowers - hence my comments about the need to cover for Pocock's absence.

 

[ForceFan]

Thanks FF (Folau Fainga'a) - do your ruck stats include the tackler and/or ball carrier?

Note the comments before the first tables.
The Ruck Stats are ONLY the actual involvement at the Breakdown - after the ruck has been formed.
They do not include the ball carrier, nor the tackler/s. They do include the player/s who may have been part of the tackle but have regained their feet.
My total rucks are generally very close to those in ESPN stats.
So yes - all other stats are in addition to the Ruck Involvement stats.

I can understand what you are looking at but is each contact/activity of equal value?

 

[Wilson]

As interesting as the ruck stats are the most damming for mine has to be the 19 handling errors, only 3 short of Argentina when we only had half as much possession.

 

[KOB1987]

Note the comments before the first tables.
The Ruck Stats are ONLY the actual involvement at the Breakdown - after the ruck has been formed.
They do not include the ball carrier, nor the tackler/s. They do include the player/s who may have been part of the tackle but have regained their feet.
My total rucks are generally very close to those in ESPN stats.
So yes - all other stats are in addition to the Ruck Involvement stats.

FF (Folau Fainga'a), I'm slowly getting my head around these, but largely using your stats, plus others, in your opinion what 4,5,6,7,8 combination provides a good balance going forward, excluding Pocock obviously. And the benchies too.

 

[ForceFan]

With so little ball it's a funny game to look at in terms of ruck involvements. Clearly Pocock is tasked with competing at as many defensive rucks as possible because that is his greatest strength. Aside from that though, our team was very much focused on fanning out and keeping the defensive line intact.

Cheika is changing the game plan, particularly around the breakdown in almost every game - as the Ruck Stats show.

England won the 3 tests in the June tests with much less possession than the Wallabies but there were still some high ruck involvements.

In the Test against the Pumas, both teams were standing off opposition rucks a lot more than we've seen in other Tests this year.

Is it part of developing a game plan for when the Wallabies are without Pocock & Gill and more in line with the way the game is being refereed?

IMO that would be a shame for the game, as one attraction is the physical battle for the ball which differentiates Rugby from other ball games.

 

[ForceFan]

FF (Folau Fainga'a), I'm slowly getting my head around these, but largely using your stats, plus others, in your opinion what 4,5,6,7,8 combination provides a good balance going forward, excluding Pocock obviously. And the benchies too.

I'm no rugby coach but can't limit looking at these positions in isolation.

The Wallabies would benefit from Front Rowers who are not only good at the set piece but also around the park.

We're also missing the contributions at the breakdown from hard working backs such as AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), To'omua, Kuridrani who often have as many Ruck Involvements as many of the Forwards.
(Which reminds me that I have to add the more involved Backs to the post).

If Pocock and Gill are missing then the 10 additional Def Rucks provided by Pocock will need to be spread over those who can be effective at slowing down the ball and maybe even earning TOWs. Some of them have to come from our Tight 5.
Hooper is capable of providing these but his running game will suffer.
Mcmahon has not shown that he is capable of lifting this part of his game.
It's all about the balance that we hear so much about - especially in providing the necessary lineout and scrum skills.

Super Rugby form is some indication of what players are capable of in the Test arena. Some players (Carter, Fardy, McCalman [although not this year] and to some extent Douglas seem to lift in Tests). Others struggle to maintain Super Rugby stats at the higher level. I reckon if a player can replicate Super Rugby stats in Tests than he's doing OK. The National Coach is entitled to expect top performance in every game at test level. He can ill-afford to carry players who are below even their own par.

IMO Cheika doesn't have a lot of options as the cupboard isn't exactly bursting with talent in 2016. He needs to give players like Timani more game time as he at least has the physical attributes that we need in a No 8. I reckon players such as Holloway, even when fit, need to develop their game more at Super Rugby or NRC level. I'm excited that many young players are being tested in positions in the NRC where they need to develop their skill set.
Douglas, Coleman, Simmons, Mumm and Arnold will still be the only options as Locks. I don't think that Skelton has the necessary skill set/match fitness.
On Tour, for the next 3 Tests I would expect that we'll still see Fardy and McCalman in the mix as Cheika knows what they bring - particularly at their best.