Wallabies v Springboks Saturday 9th Sept NIB Stadium

[Brumby Runner]

Depending on how he goes today for the Spirit, one change I'd like to see considered would be Lance in at 10 for Foley. Would allow KB (Kurtley Beale) to stay at 12 where he has been outstanding and where he also has the opportunity to get back to support Folau in the second full back spot. As often as not last night he returned either by kicking himself or by running back at the opposition.Think we might be a bit weaker at the back if Beale moves to 15 and Folau to the wing.

 

[Derpus]

There’s Marcell Coetzee, Francois Louw, Bismarck du Plessis (and his brother if you want to count him), Francois Steyn, Cobus Reinach and of course Combrinck and RJVR were not in the Bok team.

We now have a back three with a combined total of 18 caps (Habana & Pietersen surpass that individually and even sporadic Willie le Roux does).

Then we have a reserve prop with 16 caps with no start as of yet and a Hooker in his second season of international rugby and a still very inexperienced back-row.

Oh, and let us not forget Cronje also only has about a handful of caps to his name and our flyhajlf has only now started to show he can play international rugby.

Given all of that I think the Boks didn’t do too badly against a vastly more experienced unit on their turf.

Hanging on to oldtimers too long has been your problem for ages. All the young guns get the shits and piss off. Assessing the quality of your team via number of caps is not ideal.

 

[KOB1987]

RHP - 118kg. Perhaps check some facts before posting misleading opinions. Obviously heavier than Hanigan and actually plays and looks heavier still. But in his absence through injury, someone else does need to step up.

It's actually about more than his weight, I've seen him play, he's a good player without being exceptional which is exactly the same as Hanigan. I'd actually like to see him get selected just to prove that it will make exactly fuck all difference.

 

[Derpus]

Just got around to watching it. We should have won that, we fell away for about 20 minutes in the second half that really let them back into the game. Still, better than Bled 1 but a little regression on Bled 2.

The good
Tight five didn't have their best game but we are really developing a consistent unit of good players. I doubted 26 minutes of Super Rugby Uelese but he seems the goods. He and Latu should take over the reins by the next World Cup and Moore and Taf can finally retire.
We have some good depth out wide, Hodge playing excellently in the absence of DHP. Speight played okay though i still think Sefa is our best option out wide.
Foley played well and landed all his kicks. I don't think Hodge is really good enough even for long range attempts. With Beale on the field you would think he'd should be taking the long shots.
Our discipline was really good. Australian sides are often defined by ill discipline and i think this team should get credit for its discipline.
Hoopers captaining was good. Thank god Beale is back.

The bad
Getting dominated at the breakdown and bringing on Dempsey (although he did OK). Sheesh our backrow could use some work. That being said with Poey returning, Nairani nearing eligibility and some other options like RHP still to return we hopefully won't have to see this combination for much longer. Hanigan and McMahon were completely absent.
Getting obliterated in the scrum and bringing on Robertson. Just not good enough and the only real weak link in our tight 5.
Those were really the only two areas that we had problems with. That being said we were so deficient in those two areas it was enough for us to as good as lose a match we were generally the better team in.
South Africa didn't offer much. Janjties didn't really get the attack going and most of their chances were counter-attacking. It's becomming obvious to everyone that, generally speaking, the Wallabies will beat themselves if you apply pressure in defence. Bit shit really.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

I don't mind RHP, but I think he is benefiting a lot by not being there

 

[Froggy]

I agree with all here that Hanigan is not up to this level (although with Fardy o/s and RHP injured, alternatives are a bit lean) but I don't get all the negative comment re Robertson. Quite clearly the issue with our scrum came about when AAA came on at THP (as was the case a fortnight ago against the AB's, our problem was at THP until Kepu came on).

Now, I think AAA is a player of the future, but at this point in time he is not scrummaging at test level. And while I know it is fashionable on her to bag Robertson, I can't think of a single scrum that's got into trouble at the loosehead side while he's been on in the RC this year.

Really hard to know what to do at 6, possibly McMahon with Timani at 8, but McMahon was invisible in Bled 1 and last night, but with one very strong game in Bled 2, and Timani did nothing when he came on in Bled 2. Maybe Simmons at 6? Clutching at straws.

Players who really impressed me last night were TPN, Coleman, Hooper and Beale. Hooper won us a turnover penalty, pretty good for a centre eh? Also thought Uelese had a strong debut.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'm watching the last few minutes of NZ v Arg - I think we're in deep shit next week

 

[Pfitzy]

Really hard to know what to do at 6, possibly McMahon with Timani at 8, but McMahon was invisible in Bled 1 and last night, but with one very strong game in Bled 2, and Timani did nothing when he came on in Bled 2. Maybe Simmons at 6? Clutching at straws.

Dempsey.

Hanigan got steamrolled by the big Bokke straight runners from what I saw, and he will get more of the same against the Argies.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Bernie Larkham engineered a bonus point win for the Brumbies over the Jaguares. What's to say that he and Cheika can't do the same for the Wallabies over the Pumas?

 

[ForceFan]

WALLABIES V SPRINGBOKS – Perth, 9 Sep 2017
BREAKDOWN & OTHER MATTERS

I can enjoy a close game but don’t consider a draw as a good result.
The Wallabies should never have lost this game after the score line was Wallabies 20:10 Springboks at 48 minutes.
However, the Wallabies looked pedestrian in attack and showed no urgency in defence. Too often the Wallabies were too slow in support of their own ball carriers and provided too few effective cleanouts.
In contrast the Springboks showed the benefit of competing strongly in defensive rucks and and preventing any clean ball to the Wallabies’ playmakers. As Cheika admitted: “we were under pressure and unable to create any shape in our game”.

Although the Wallabies still won, what most coaches would consider, an acceptable number of their own rucks (84 from 89 – 94%) the Springboks were almost faultless (56 from 57 – 98%).

The Wallabies had most of the Possession (58%) and Territory (58%).
The Wallabies dominated the ball carrying stats with 596m from 120 runs (5m/carry) against the Springboks 307m from 74 runs (4.1m/carry) yet the Springboks were more effective with 17 Clean Breaks (Wallabies 7) and 21 Defenders Beaten (Wallabies 17).
Not unusually the Springboks kicked more with 27 kicks against the Wallabies 23.
Penalties were close (W 9:8 S) and the Springboks conceded more Turn Overs – 15 v W 12.

Again the Wallabies tackled badly with another 21 missed tackles (59 from 80 @ 74%). The Springboks missed 17 tackles but had a much higher success rate (126 from 143 @ 88%).

Referees have been penalising pilferers with hands on ground (for not supporting their weight) in all competitions since the last RWC. Glen Jackson obviously didn’t get the memo.

At key times during the match the Wallabies were let down by their normally reliable set piece. The Wallabies scrum struggled after bench replacements and won only 63% of line outs on their own throw (7 from 11) while stealing only the single Springbok line out (12 from 13).

INDIVIDUAL RUCK INVOLVEMENTS

Ruck Involvements (RIs) tabulated for the Forwards who make about 75%-80% of each team’s Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs). IMO RIs are a good measure of work rate – particularly for a Forward.

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.

(Other than Ruck Involvements stats from ESPN)

Relatively slow arrivals from Coleman, Uelese, McMahon, Arnold, Sio but particularly Dempsey.

Relatively low impact from Hanigan, Uelese, Kepu but particularly Sio.

Hopper's numbers very close to his Super Rugby 2017 average.

Relatively slow arrivals from Kolisi, Marx, Oosthuizen, Casseim, but particularly Mtawariri & du Preez.

Relatively low impact from Kolisi, Oosthuizen, Mtawariri, du Preez and particularly Casseim.


RUCK INVOLVEMENTS OVER TIME

 

[ForceFan]

RUCK INVOLVEMENTS BY MAIN PLAYER GROUPS

Fairly even Attack Ruck Involvements across main player groups.

Once again the Wallabies Tight 5 outworked by their opposition.

The bulk of Wallabies 'D" Ruck Involvements by the Back Row.

Hooper had 33% of the Wallabies DRIs.
Jaco Kriel and Marx had 33% of the Springboks DRIs.


NUMBERS AT THE BREAKDOWN

Although the distributions appear similar the Springboks averaged more players at both Attack & Defence Rucks.

Attack Rucks: Springboks - 2.6 players/ruck; Wallabies -
Defence Rucks:

The real difference was in speed of support and impact at the breakdown.



Ruck Involvements by Backs

Wallabies:
Beale – 12 Total – 12 Attack/0 Defence
Kuridrani – 12T – 10A/2D
Hodge – 9T – 9A/0D
Speight - 9T- 7A/2D

Springboks:
Serfontein– 17T – 11A/6D
Skosan – 8T – 7A/1D

 

[Namerican]

I don't think I've got too much to say that hasn't already been said aside from the fact that most of the spoiled ball in offensive rucks isn't as much poor rucking but a willingness to move the ball damn near anywhere, even if there's no support.

This pays dividends at times, but often you'll see the Wallabies shift the ball to a blind side with three players and there'll be a pass or two and it is just a numbers game that there'll only be two or maybe even one player (if taken out post-pass for example) available to ruck, often smaller backs like Beale or Folau (not great rucker). Kind of hard to criticize this too much because the strength of the team is in their passing/running.

There also seems to be a tendency to force passes to Beale/Folau rather than eating the ball and recycling. They are amazing players, but just getting them the ball when there's no space doesn't often accomplish much and they often get hit going backwards or it would have been easier to ruck if the pass was never made. Genia seems more willing than Phipps to put the ball anywhere. Same pro/con.

Only other comment is that Hanigan doesn't seem up to this level. He plays intelligently, just a bigger/stronger/faster equation. And he looked gassed the last 25 minutes. You'd think there'd be a better option, even a Higginbothom/Fardy/Timani, but I guess the team is looking to the future.

Also is McMahon leaving permanently? He's looked wonderful in recent tests, seems like he's finding his stride. It'd be a major blow if he's gone.

 

[Namerican]

RUCK INVOLVEMENTS BY MAIN PLAYER GROUPS



View attachment 9771

Fairly even Attack Ruck Involvements across main player groups.



View attachment 9772

Once again the Wallabies Tight 5 outworked by their opposition.

The bulk of Wallabies 'D" Ruck Involvements by the Back Row.

Hooper had 33% of the Wallabies DRIs.
Jaco Kriel and Marx had 33% of the Springboks DRIs.


NUMBERS AT THE BREAKDOWN

View attachment 9773

View attachment 9774


Although the distributions appear similar the Springboks averaged more players at both Attack & Defence Rucks.

Attack Rucks: Springboks - 2.6 players/ruck; Wallabies -
Defence Rucks:

The real difference was in speed of support and impact at the breakdown.



Ruck Involvements by Backs

Wallabies:
Beale – 12 Total – 12 Attack/0 Defence
Kuridrani – 12T – 10A/2D
Hodge – 9T – 9A/0D
Speight - 9T- 7A/2D

Springboks:
Serfontein– 17T – 11A/6D
Skosan – 8T – 7A/1D

This is where I think stats get taken way out of context. The key stat that you are missing is passes. The Wallabies passed the ball 167 times while the Springboks passed the ball only 94 times. It is far easier to support your own team when you never move the ball past the 10 channel or kick it when you do. The ruck stats will look great. You won't turn the ball over in a ruck, your forwards will clear everyone out nicely, but odds are you aren't going forward and you'll eventually kick the ball away. Which they did. And the Springboks weren't making metres on the ground, they only made 307 metres, much of it off of weird loose play. The Wallabies pass the ball all over the place, so their forwards aren't going to be there to ruck when, say, Bernard Foley tosses a 15 metre pass over someone's head to Curtis Rona on the wing. The Boks weren't remarkably better at the breakdown, they were remarkably better at playing a style that guarantees that you will have good stats at the breakdown whereas the Wallabies play an opposite style. The upside to Wallabies is that this style results in a lot of metres made on the ground, they almost doubled the Boks, but they are also going to turn the ball over more, not be there in support etc. The challenge for the Wallabies is to cut down the turnovers as best they can and convert the territory advantage their running game offers into points once they get into the other team's 22, be it kicks or tries. Or to use the running game to set up tactical kicking prior to a turnover occuring. As for the 22 I thought Beale's cross kick to Falau with advantage was an example of doing this poorly. Yes you have advantage, but use that advantage for a higher percentage opportunity to score, like endless pick and gos, not a hail mary.

 

[USARugger]

Cyclo can you give me the ability to "love" a post on here?

 

[dru]

FF (Folau Fainga'a) fabulous work as usual.

Looking at those ruck involvements I'm wondering if some of it is a consequence of a completely intended playing style. The loose forwards, lighter faster seem wider. In fact the locks don't seem right on the ruck (hence some of the easy pick and go through non existent rucks we saw from the Boys in the second half).

It also looks like Cootzee is trying something similar.

Biggest issue for me remains the set piece. The rucks are confusing as it is hard to say exactly what Cheika is trying to do.

 

[formerflanker]

Did any one see who charged down the attempted field goal at the death? Equal to a try saving tackle IMO.

 

[wamberal]

FF (Folau Fainga'a) fabulous work as usual.

Biggest issue for me remains the set piece. The rucks are confusing as it is hard to say exactly what Cheika is trying to do.

I am beginning to wonder whether Chubby is actually interested in all the boring technical stuff. He seems to spend all his time talking about attitudinal and motivational aspects of the game. They are important, but the basics are what we have to have right, automatically, and consistently.

 

[Froggy]

FF (Folau Fainga'a), Hooper was the charge down

 

[Scrubber2050]

My take for what it is worth.

What a difference 2 weeks make. We go from great effort in Bled 2 to back to where we were. That says to me that the performance is Bled 2 was an abrogation.

Our props Sio and Keps have been poor for over a year. Last year I think Sio played 3 ir 4 tests without a total of 1 run. I thought AAA was very good and got his starting chance. He has not taken it and that is disturbing.

Our scrum with the odd exception is fucking poor. And that's with the world's best scrummaging hooker. The props are poor but so are the other 5 blokes.

Robertson really must have something on Chek to warrant even getting picked last year, let alone last week. Fucking disgraceful.

Taf has been good and should have been the starting hooker for about 3 years.

Coleman was very good but Rory not so. Simmo was just Simmo.

Hanigan is a joke and even Andrew Slack flogged him yesterday in "The Sunday Mail". But he is a Chek "favourite" and keep getting picked.

McMahon AND Hooper were quite poor. Hooper's form seems to have waned since he got the captaincy.

Genia wasn't poor, he was shit but his pundits will raise his Bled 2 performance for another couple of years. Trouble is a real lack of depth at 9. Pull some bloke from the NRC and give him a shot (like the young hooker).

Only good thing about Foley was he kicked everything in sight

TK, Speight, Hodge, Folau all received just pass marks from me - 5's

The bloke who continues to excel is Kurtley - truly an amazing effort.

Another fail to Chek and his assistants. How long is this Mario going to be around for? He is getting paid for sitting on his arse.

 

[Braveheart81]

I thought Hooper had his best test of the year.

He made a few vital plays for the Wallabies including an incredibly try-saver chasing down a centre and blocking the field goal shot at the end.

Our forward pack's accuracy at the breakdown was horrible. So many missed cleanouts by everyone.

Our lineout faltered badly. Two wonky throws and a number of bobbled catches that were knocked on.

The scrum was just poor. I can see why Kepu started ahead of Ala'alatoa. It was definitely stronger when he was on. All props struggled though.