• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wallabies vs All Blacks 10th August @Optus Stadium Perth

Lorenzo

Lorenzo

Colin Windon (37)
I'd like to note (if it hasn't already been discussed in this thread) the evident value in picking a bigger guy at 6, giving us two legit big backrowers. Those two units were everywhere on Saturday night.
 
zer0

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Strewthcobber said:
Looking at the stats our tight five made an almost unbelievable amount of metres with the ball. I seriously can't recall seeing stats like these ever before (ESPN)

Combined the starting five + reserves made 60 runs, and made 126m (!)
And it was shared around too, all of the starting 5 had 8+ runs and made double digit metres

NZ - 33 runs and 73m

Comparing with the SA match, we had 22 runs and 14m, SA had 28 and 27m
The Argie match, we had 28 and 85m, they had 39 and 63m
Click to expand...

Rather than looking at the carrying stats in absolute terms, I think you need to weight them by the amount of possession each side has. If a team has double the possession you'd expect them to make about double the carries. The match stats tells us that the Wallabies had 65% possession overall, which equates to 52 minutes of possession/attacking time. They should naturally, then, have a lot more carries and metres gained than the AB's and their 28 minutes of possession.

This is what you get if you quickly weight those carry numbers by the minutes in possession:

QT2GcsH.png


What do we find from a quick look? Well, as I think most would expect, Hooper and Savea were the most involved in their respective packs running game. Hooper carried 3.46 times per ten minutes of Wallabies attacking time, and Savea 3.21 per ten minutes of All Black attacking time. Though there's a bit of a discrepancy in their metres/carry, where Savea was comfortably out ahead at 6.67 m/carry, and Hooper at 2.28 m/carry. I suspect Savea's ridiculous dummy that allowed him to race off down field for a big gain is responsible for his large carry metres.

There's also a clear difference in the carrying contributions of starters and reserves between the two teams. The Australian starting pack accounts for 89% of the overall carries in the forwards, and each had 8-18 runs, equating to 1.54-3.46 carries per 10 minutes of possession. None of their reserves, however, carried more than once per 10 minutes of possession. Meanwhile the NZ pack is more-or-less the opposite. The bench accounted for 45% of the forwards overall carries, and all had at least one carry per 10 minutes of possession. In the starters, Coles, Savea and Read did most of the heavy lifting in attack, though Read wasn't that effective.

The reason for this difference? Likely a mix of game-plan and context, I'd guess. The AB's game-plan has the hookers as primary attacking threats out wide, and Savea is the de facto #8. I believe their forward assault leading to the try came one the reserves were on (?), which might explain their increased involvement as that was something like a ~20 phase sequence.

With regards to the Wallabies, their involvements are much more evenly distributed among the starters, which backs up the observations that it was an all-round effort with no one shirking their duties. As for the reserves low levels of involvement, could simply be the match broke up and got more frantic by the time they arrived, with the backs likely having greater prominence. You'd have to go back through the previous tests to figure out if it were something to be concerned about.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
zer0 said:
There's also a clear difference in the carrying contributions of starters and reserves between the two teams. The Australian starting pack accounts for 89% of the overall carries in the forwards, and each had 8-18 runs, equating to 1.54-3.46 carries per 10 minutes of possession. None of their reserves, however, carried more than once per 10 minutes of possession. Meanwhile the NZ pack is more-or-less the opposite. The bench accounted for 45% of the forwards overall carries, and all had at least one carry per 10 minutes of possession. In the starters, Coles, Savea and Read did most of the heavy lifting in attack, though Read wasn't that effective.

The reason for this difference? Likely a mix of game-plan and context, I'd guess. The AB's game-plan has the hookers as primary attacking threats out wide, and Savea is the de facto #8. I believe their forward assault leading to the try came one the reserves were on (?), which might explain their increased involvement as that was something like a ~20 phase sequence.
Click to expand...


A substantial contributor to this is the first and second half possession stats and the timing of replacements.

The Wallabies had 81% possession in the first half and 53% in the second half. The All Blacks replacements were on the field at a time when they had a lot more ball (and chances to run) than the players they replaced.

Likewise, they played a lot more minutes. The 5 Wallabies bench forwards played 89 minutes and the 5 All Blacks played 128 minutes. On top of that Barrett only played 40 minutes (so there were 168 minutes in total not played by the All Blacks starting pack).
 
Dctarget

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
Did Matt To'omua actually do any playmaking? He ran well, but I don't remember much actual fly-halfing.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Slim 293 said:
Salty, salty tears...

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12257778
Click to expand...


"The Herald has counted at least 14 neck rolls by Wallabies players attempting to clear out All Black bodies at the breakdown, including an extremely obvious one by centre James O'Connor on Anton Lienert-Brown in the direct lead-up to Nic White's try."

They say they counted at least 14 but they've just posted 3 pictures of the most obvious one (which I agree from the images is a neck roll) and not mentioned what any of the others were.
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
I have a lot of affection for Kiwis and their generally rugged sense of humour and self deprecation but it all seems a bit brittle once the bloody All Blacks lose a rugby game.

This one is my favourite:

And while coach Steve Hansen called Ardie Savea's push on the back of Hooper's head shortly before that a "dumb act", for referee Jerome Garces to penalise it shows a remarkable lack of empathy and feel for the game. Hooper pushed Savea in the back of the head by way of retaliation, a penalisable act in itself.
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
Tex said:
I have a lot of affection for Kiwis and their generally rugged sense of humour and self deprecation but it all seems a bit brittle once the bloody All Blacks lose a rugby game.

This one is my favourite:

And while coach Steve Hansen called Ardie Savea's push on the back of Hooper's head shortly before that a "dumb act", for referee Jerome Garces to penalise it shows a remarkable lack of empathy and feel for the game. Hooper pushed Savea in the back of the head by way of retaliation, a penalisable act in itself.
Click to expand...

Some arse about cause and effect there. Let's hope the Wallabies can up the ante in this discussion. ;)
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
zer0 said:
Rather than looking at the carrying stats in absolute terms, I think you need to weight them by the amount of possession each side has. If a team has double the possession you'd expect them to make about double the carries. The match stats tells us that the Wallabies had 65% possession overall, which equates to 52 minutes of possession/attacking time. They should naturally, then, have a lot more carries and metres gained than the AB's and their 28 minutes of possession.
Click to expand...
The obvious question is are the 80% possession stats a cause or a result of the terrific carry numbers in the first half?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The_Brown_Hornet said:
WTF? What is Kerevi supposed to do in that situation, stop?
Click to expand...


I did see this raised elsewhere and Kerevi is totally fine. The article is ridiculous.

Kerevi is entitled to bump into the tackler like he did as long as he keeps his arms tucked in to his body. He certainly can't raise his arm and strike the tackler with his forearm.
 
F

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
Tex said:
This is peak delusion. We're in dangerous territory here chaps, possibly approaching a psychological break. This is what happens when the self-image of a nation is too finely balanced on the outcome of a single sporting team.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Even Phil Kearns couldn't sink that low.... that's saying something.

Ian Anderson might just be NZ's answer to Shiggins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top