Wallabies v South Africa 18 July 2015

[Alison]

"not clear", "may have", "previous reticence". Don't see much in the way of fact in those words. I remain sceptical that Cooper would have paid his own release fee.

[GIGS20]

Well... Isn't (a few) someone's face red at the moment. Hope there wasn't too much al-foil wasted

Not talking about me are you? I thought my analysis was confirmed pretty conclusively actually. The bench players managed to recover from the initial selection disasters and take the game at the absolute last tick of the clock. Nothing I've seen since then has implied that the starting team named was anything other than a success, most press pointing to the end result as their indicator.

[hertryk]

Sharpie doing sideline commentary on One HD coverage.

Much better commentary...

[hertryk]

When they took the first one, as a kick was being lined up I though stuff this and turned over, but the commentary was such a disaster that I was back to one before the kickoff.

It's not like fox will lose a customer, because I want to watch super rugby, but I won't be watching their telecasts of the test matches.

Same here

[andrewg]

On 19 July at #87 you can find the Ruck Stats for the Wallabies.

I have now completed the review of the Springboks stats as well as a Half by half comparison and a comparison against average SuperRugby ruck performance for the Wallaby players.

This is all likely to be posted on G&GR later this week.

You are all aware the Brisbane Test was a 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 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:
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.



RUCK OVERVIEW

Wallabies 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.
7. 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.)


Attachment 3939

Springbok 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.


Attachment 3940

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.

Attachment 3941

Attachment 3942

COMPARISON WITH SUPERRUGBY 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.

However, 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 drop-off in 2nd half.
Holmes - higher involvement but slower with less impact than SXV level.
Kepu and Skelton - arrival time drop-off in 2nd half.
Horwill and Sio – Cameos but similar level of involvement and faster arrival than SXV.