You know the score, you’ve seen the game and you’ve probably formed a view on what the Wallabies did well and what they can improve on. What do the statistics show? Do they support your views on what happened in the game?
Throughout the Wallabies 2010 campaign we’ll bring you previews, live calls, match reports and after match analysis (including statistics). Our statistical analysis isn’t just a series of numbers regurgitated from another source – these are statistics prepared by the Green and Gold Rugby team so we can all dig a little deeper into an analysis of the game.
You can download the complete team statistics here and player statistics here. What do you glean from the numbers that we haven’t touched on? If you’ve got suggestions as to statistics you’d like to see, let us know.
Whilst statistics are only one part of match analysis they are a good way to spot trends, both positive and negative, to reinforce what a team is doing well or come up with solutions for problem areas.
Tomorrow we’ll publish a more detailed analysis (including the statistics) of how Quade Cooper and Matt Giteau operated during the game.
Let’s look at some of the key statistics from Saturday’s game. First, the set pieces.
| WALLABIES | FIJI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | ||
| Lineouts | Ball Thrown In | 9 | 6 | 15 | 8 | 5 | 13 |
| Won | 8 | 5 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| Lost | 1 | – | 1 | 4 | 2 | 6 | |
| Throw Not Straight | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Pen/FK For | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | |
| Pen/FK Against | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Won % | 89% | 100% | 93% | 50% | 60% | 54% | |
| WALLABIES | FIJI | ||||||
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | ||
| Scrums | Ball Fed | 5 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Won | 5 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 8 | |
| Lost | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Pen/FK For | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | |
| Pen/FK Against | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Won % | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
The Wallabies lineout was good but was never really challenged by Fiji. The one loss seemed to be a timing problem – the throw was accurate but the Wallabies were a little slow getting Nathan Sharpe up and as a consequence the ball went over the back. From a defensive point of view, the Wallabies took 6 of the Fijian lineouts and Dean Mumm exerted good pressure at the front. It’s obviously going to be a much greater challenge next week against the English.
The Wallaby scrum was solid enough but I think the Fijian scrum looked a little more comfortable. With the loss of Alexander this could be an area of concern next week.
Now let’s look at possession statistics.
| WALLABIES | FIJI | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | % | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | % | ||
| Duration of | 1 Phase | 12 | 7 | 19 | 33% | 8 | 4 | 12 | 34% |
| Possession | 2 Phases | 13 | 9 | 22 | 38% | 7 | 5 | 12 | 33% |
| 3-5 Phases | 7 | 6 | 13 | 22% | 3 | 4 | 7 | 19% | |
| Over 5 Phases | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7% | 1 | 4 | 5 | 14% | |
| Total | 33 | 25 | 58 | 100% | 19 | 17 | 36 | 100% | |
| Total Phases | 73 | 68 | 141 | 46 | 73 | 119 | |||
| in Possession | |||||||||
| Average Phases | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | |||
| in Possession |
In attack, the Wallabies had the ball 58 times compared to 36 times for Fiji. In those possessions the Wallabies had 141 phases (an average of 3 per possession) whilst Fiji had 119 phases (an average of 4 per possession). The Wallabies ran the ball close to the breakdown 52% of their phases and ran wide of the breakdown 30% of the time, only kicking on 10% of their phases. With first phase possession 50% of the Wallabies play was directed close to the breakdown and only 5% to kicking. Hopefully this ball in hand style is part of the plan going forward.
Of the 14 phases where the Wallabies kicked, 5 were negative (36%). Quade Cooper kicked on out on the full when the ball had been passed back into the 22 and wasted possession with a chip that no-one else seemed to know was on. Matt Giteau sliced one off the side of his boot when clearing from the line, pulled one into touch on the full from outside his 22 and wasted possession with a misdirected cross field kick which Fiji marked easily. There’s room for improvement in this area.
The Wallabies had the advantage in line breaks 10 to 2 and in offloads 14 to 10. However, they also had the advantage in possession lost through dropped ball, 15 to 9. Twelve of these occasions were in their attacking half and some really good attacking opportunities were spoilt through poor ball control. Fortunately 10 of the 15 occasions where the ball was lost were in the first half, so hopefully the players were just a little rusty being the first game together for the season.
At the breakdown, the numbers suggest the Wallabies were effective with 96% retention of the 103 times they took the ball in with only 4 breakdowns lost (3 through a penalty/free kick and 1 stolen ball). Fiji had a 96% retention from the 94 times they took the ball into the breakdown and the Wallabies obviously went in with a plan not to commit to the breakdowns. Both teams had a 93% retention rate when they took the ball into a breakdown on 1st phase. I think the Wallabies will have to commit more players to the breakdown against the English this week – we don’t want to give them too much uncontested ball.
Defence statistics were as follows:
| WALLABIES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Half | 2nd Half | Match | % | ||
| Defence | Tackles Attempted | 44 | 108 | 152 | |
| Made | 42 | 93 | 135 | ||
| Missed | 2 | 15 | 17 | ||
| Made % | 95% | 86% | 89% | ||
| Tackles – Dominant | 13 | 16 | 29 | 21% | |
| Tackles – Completed | 29 | 77 | 106 | 79% |
In defence the Wallabies made 135 tackles but missed 17 (an 89% success rate). Quade Cooper missed two but Dean Mumm, Rocky Elsom and Luke Burgess topped the count with three each.
Penalties and free kicks went the Wallabies way 15 to 8.
Three of the Wallabies tries came from a turnover or counter attack and Digby Ioane can take a lot of the credit for this with an individual try after David Pocock secured a turnover at the breakdown and then a great run in counter attack to link with Kurtly Beale and then take the return pass to score.
What about player involvement?
| Player | Carries | Line Breaks | Dominant Tackles Made | Total Tackles Made | Tackles Missed | Successful Tackle % | Tries Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben Alexander | 6 | – | 2 | 8 | – | 100% | – |
| Huia Edmonds | 3 | – | 2 | 5 | – | 100% | – |
| Salesi Ma’afu | 6 | – | 1 | 7 | – | 100% | – |
| Dean Mumm | 13 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 63% | – |
| Nathan Sharpe | 18 | – | 3 | 9 | – | 100% | – |
| Rocky Elsom | 13 | – | 3 | 13 | 3 | 81% | – |
| David Pocock | 4 | – | 3 | 12 | – | 100% | – |
| Richard Brown | 11 | – | 2 | 11 | – | 100% | 1 |
| Luke Burgess | 8 | – | 2 | 13 | 3 | 81% | – |
| Quade Cooper | 25 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 78% | 1 |
| Adam Ashley-Cooper | 11 | 1 | 1 | 3 | – | 100% | – |
| Matt Giteau | 13 | – | 1 | 3 | 1 | 75% | – |
| Rob Horne | 8 | 1 | 2 | 10 | – | 100% | – |
| Digby Ioane | 15 | 2 | – | 5 | 1 | 83% | 2 |
| Kurtley Beale | 14 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 100% | 2 |
| Saia Faingaa | 3 | – | 2 | 5 | 1 | 83% | – |
| Pekahou Cowan | 1 | – | – | 6 | 1 | 86% | – |
| Matt Hodgson | – | – | 1 | 9 | 1 | 90% | – |
| Drew Mitchell | 9 | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | 67% | 1 |
| Total | 181 | 10 | 29 | 135 | 17 | 89% | 7 |
In terms of work rate, Rocky Elsom led from the front but the backrow were all well involved. I liked the involvement of Nathan Sharpe and Dean Mumm in taking the ball up – I like to see big locks creating go forward for a team, not just supporting and cleaning out. Ben Alexander also got involved but Huia Edmonds was a little quiet and maybe that is one of the reasons he’s playing in the Barbarians game this week.
So, what do you think? Are there other areas you’d like statistics on or areas where you’d like the Green and Gold Rugby team to conduct an analysis on?
