Viking
Mark Ella (57)
By that logic you won't ever go for any penalty goals. He took the smart choice at the time. Then when time ran out he went for the win. He seems like a smart Captain to me.
Wallabies v. Springboks, 18th July 2015, Suncorp, Brisbane
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
- Status
By that logic you won't ever go for any penalty goals. He took the smart choice at the time. Then when time ran out he went for the win. He seems like a smart Captain to me.
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
That seems to be a bit out of keeping with the narrative that the Aussie scrum problems were mostly on the loosehead side. Our worst scrum of the night he blamed directly on Skelton.
Lance Free
Arch Winning (36)
Indulge me moderators - if any of you Sydney boys want some free tickets to the Shute Shield finals (incl. the Grand Final), I've just posted on the SS thread where you can get some from my mates at Intrust Super.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well you should be more careful before declaring/asserting your philosophy - particularly since the more your opponents know about you the better able to deal with it they are.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
nothing - because the opponent that matters knows that its not about what we "like", which is way this is all being very wise through the retrospectoscope
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
By that argument, kicking into the corner would be settling for the loss because you cannot be certain of scoring from the resulting lineout.
Probabilities aren't binary.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well we're not strict,y dealing in probabilities. At best we're dealing with possibilities and it's not random - at least it shouldn't be.
My point is that on his own call he was prepared to settle for a draw because he could have no real faith in getting down the other end.
Ex post facto he comes up with explanation that says they were always shooting for the win.
Doesn't fly for me.
But we won.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Well, if we can replace what the captain says with our own narrative, then we can essentially say anything. I personally believe he was shooting for the passing gorgonzola factory.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
A bit of a bizarre debate really. I thought at the time when Squeak elected to take the shot it was the right call. At worst we draw (assuming the kick went over), but we also get the pill back and give ourselves a chance to win. The later call to go for the line was pretty brave in some respects but also recognised that the kick for goal was harder (on a much greater angle) and that at best we could draw if successful.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
If Gits had managed to hit the 5m line with his kick then we'd have been a very good percentage chance to score.
Realise that this may be a bit late but may still provide some feedback as to who worked hard at rucks last week.
Brisbane Test Rucks – Tale of Two Halves
The Wallabies v Springboks Brisbane Test presented different and changing strategies at the breakdown with significant changes after half time.
The Wallabies’ 40% Possession and Territory in the first half increased to 80% in the second half.
The Wallabies won 117 of 126 rucks (93%). The Springboks won 68 of 70 rucks (97%).
The focus here is on ruck engagements by the Forwards as they provide about 80% of team ruck engagements. As for last year details are provided for the best rucking Backs.
Details of ruck engagements by both sides tell us much about the additional pressure brought to the breakdown by the Wallabies Forwards and which Forwards put in the extra effort required to turn the game around.
Remember:
Comments:
1.Both sides showed a focus on ball retention with strong support of their ball carriers. Only 15% of Wallabies and 24% of Springboks ruck engagements were Defensive ruck engagements.
2.Wallabies Backs provided 26% of Total ruck engagements, but only 12% of Defensive ruck engagements.
3.Although much maligned by bloggers, the ruck contribution of Fardy and Simmons was invaluable to the Wallabies:
a.Fardy made 14 Defensive Rucks – 31% of Defensive Ruck engagements made by the Forwards.
b.Simmons was second to Hooper in his support of the Wallaby ball carriers.
4.Higginbotham, Holmes, Kepu and Skelton had the slowest arrival times to rucks. More later.
5.Replacements had minimal involvement in Defensive Rucks as the Springboks had only 21% possession in the 2nd half.
6.Of the Forwards, only Hooper and Pocock were credited with Turn Overs.Pocock’s Turn Over strike rate was twice that of Hooper earning his single Turn Over from only 2 Defensive ruck engagements. (Hooper 1 TOW from 4 Def rucks). (Published stats show Pocock with 3 TOW but I believe this to be in error.)
Comments:
1.The Springbok Forwards appeared to be very selective in arrival time and ruck involvement.
2.Springboks Backs provided 18% of Total ruck engagements, but 39% of Defensive ruck engagements.
3.The Springbok Forwards were credited with 9 Turn Overs Won. Most of these were in the 1st half when the Wallabies were either too slow to arrive, or lacking numbers at, the breakdown.
RUCKS – 10-MINUTE BREAKDOWN
The rucks per 10 minutes show those contributing most to the ruck work.
For the Wallabies it was essentially the Back Row plus Moore and Simmons with good contributions by the 2nd half replacements.
For the Springboks – Back Row and Front Row with lesser input from the Locks.
HALF-BY-HALF COMPARISON
This was a Test with results strongly driven by ball retention.
A comparison of Attack Ruck engagements for each half shows how the Wallabies changed their approach to eventually change the game outcome.
1.Big lift in Arrival Time by Fardy, Simmons, Moore and, to lesser extent, Slipper.
2.Minor drop-off by Hooper but slight improvement in impact.
3.Dramatic reduction in arrival time for Higginbotham, Kepu and Skelton before all replaced early in 2nd half. Higginbotham and Kepu after 47 min and Skelton after 51 mins. Maybe when they were planned to be replaced.
The Springboks generally increased their urgency in the 2nd half but Etzebeth, de Jager and Burger showed signs of fatigue. Springbok replacements had minimal impact due to the dramatic change in possession.
COMPARISON WITH SUPER RUGBY RUCKING PERFORMANCE
It would be unreasonable to read too much into an individual player’s performance from a single Test.
In addition, each player is in a different player environment and under the influence of a different coach and subsequent game plans.
The SXV performance is the average for 40 minutes played.
Nevertheless, there is always discussion as to how each player’s SuperRugby performance transfers into the Test arena.
Hooper - significant lift in involvement from SXV level in 1st half and even more in 2nd half.
Fardy - just doing his thing with big lift in 2nd half.
Simmons - big lift in 2nd half.
Moore - big lift in 2nd half.
Pocock - hit ground running well above SXV level.
Higginbotham - slower than SXV level and became worse in 2nd half.
Holmes - slower with less impact than SXV level.
Kepu and Skelton - arrival time drop-off in 2nd half.
Horwill and Sio – Similar level of involvement and faster arrival than SXV.
ps....I will post the Wallabies Ruck stats as soon as I can after the Test against the Pumas. It probably will not include stats for the Pumas.
Brisbane Test Rucks – Tale of Two Halves
The Wallabies v Springboks Brisbane Test presented different and changing strategies at the breakdown with significant changes after half time.
The Wallabies’ 40% Possession and Territory in the first half increased to 80% in the second half.
The Wallabies won 117 of 126 rucks (93%). The Springboks won 68 of 70 rucks (97%).
The focus here is on ruck engagements by the Forwards as they provide about 80% of team ruck engagements. As for last year details are provided for the best rucking Backs.
Details of ruck engagements by both sides tell us much about the additional pressure brought to the breakdown by the Wallabies Forwards and which Forwards put in the extra effort required to turn the game around.
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.
Comments:
1.Both sides showed a focus on ball retention with strong support of their ball carriers. Only 15% of Wallabies and 24% of Springboks ruck engagements were Defensive ruck engagements.
2.Wallabies Backs provided 26% of Total ruck engagements, but only 12% of Defensive ruck engagements.
3.Although much maligned by bloggers, the ruck contribution of Fardy and Simmons was invaluable to the Wallabies:
a.Fardy made 14 Defensive Rucks – 31% of Defensive Ruck engagements made by the Forwards.
b.Simmons was second to Hooper in his support of the Wallaby ball carriers.
4.Higginbotham, Holmes, Kepu and Skelton had the slowest arrival times to rucks. More later.
5.Replacements had minimal involvement in Defensive Rucks as the Springboks had only 21% possession in the 2nd half.
6.Of the Forwards, only Hooper and Pocock were credited with Turn Overs.Pocock’s Turn Over strike rate was twice that of Hooper earning his single Turn Over from only 2 Defensive ruck engagements. (Hooper 1 TOW from 4 Def rucks). (Published stats show Pocock with 3 TOW but I believe this to be in error.)
Comments:
1.The Springbok Forwards appeared to be very selective in arrival time and ruck involvement.
2.Springboks Backs provided 18% of Total ruck engagements, but 39% of Defensive ruck engagements.
3.The Springbok Forwards were credited with 9 Turn Overs Won. Most of these were in the 1st half when the Wallabies were either too slow to arrive, or lacking numbers at, the breakdown.
RUCKS – 10-MINUTE BREAKDOWN
The rucks per 10 minutes show those contributing most to the ruck work.
For the Wallabies it was essentially the Back Row plus Moore and Simmons with good contributions by the 2nd half replacements.
For the Springboks – Back Row and Front Row with lesser input from the Locks.
HALF-BY-HALF COMPARISON
This was a Test with results strongly driven by ball retention.
A comparison of Attack Ruck engagements for each half shows how the Wallabies changed their approach to eventually change the game outcome.
1.Big lift in Arrival Time by Fardy, Simmons, Moore and, to lesser extent, Slipper.
2.Minor drop-off by Hooper but slight improvement in impact.
3.Dramatic reduction in arrival time for Higginbotham, Kepu and Skelton before all replaced early in 2nd half. Higginbotham and Kepu after 47 min and Skelton after 51 mins. Maybe when they were planned to be replaced.
The Springboks generally increased their urgency in the 2nd half but Etzebeth, de Jager and Burger showed signs of fatigue. Springbok replacements had minimal impact due to the dramatic change in possession.
COMPARISON WITH SUPER RUGBY RUCKING PERFORMANCE
It would be unreasonable to read too much into an individual player’s performance from a single Test.
In addition, each player is in a different player environment and under the influence of a different coach and subsequent game plans.
The SXV performance is the average for 40 minutes played.
Nevertheless, there is always discussion as to how each player’s SuperRugby performance transfers into the Test arena.
Hooper - significant lift in involvement from SXV level in 1st half and even more in 2nd half.
Fardy - just doing his thing with big lift in 2nd half.
Simmons - big lift in 2nd half.
Moore - big lift in 2nd half.
Pocock - hit ground running well above SXV level.
Higginbotham - slower than SXV level and became worse in 2nd half.
Holmes - slower with less impact than SXV level.
Kepu and Skelton - arrival time drop-off in 2nd half.
Horwill and Sio – Similar level of involvement and faster arrival than SXV.
ps....I will post the Wallabies Ruck stats as soon as I can after the Test against the Pumas. It probably will not include stats for the Pumas.
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
Ditto Fardy.
Simmons cops it a lot more than Fardy but he has been copping it lately.
- Status