Perth Spirit Forwards ruck involvement after 4 Games

[andrewg]

Ruck involvement by the Forwards in the first 4 games of the NRC.

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.



Comments:
+ Have highlighted those with limited playing time or only part games/no full games with yellow. Extrapolating these to an 80 minute equivalent can give an over-estimation. Especially when the player was aware that he didn't have to play the full game.
+ IMO ALL forwards need to be involved in either supporting their own ball carriers and/or putting the opposition ball carriers under pressure and competing for the ball.
+ The Spirit Front Row is putting the opposition under a lot of pressure at the breakdown. Heath Tessman has been particularly energetic.
+ The Spirit's most reliable performers (Hoskins, Van Wyk & Tessman) having been clocking up about 40% of the total team ruck involvements and about 21% of the team defensive rucks. This Total Ruck involvement is about 10% higher than for any team in TRC this year and the Defensive Rucks is close to the All Black front row involvement (23%) and higher than the Boks (17%) or Wallabies (14%) front row performance.
+ Of the Locks Hall and Haylett-Petty have been very active in Defensive Rucks. The Spirit Locks are generally less involved in Total Ruck involvements (17%) which is about 10% lower than the TRC teams. However, their Defensive ruck involvements (19%) is close to the Wallabies (22%) and more than either the ABs (17%) or Boks (10%).
+ Koteka, Hardwick and Cottrell have been very active in Defensive Rucks. Rovira has been very involved in his two games.
+ The best of the Back Row total ruck involvement (42%) is a bit less than the Boks (46%) and Wallabies (45%) teams but higher than for the ABs (38%). The ABs Back Row has the least ruck involvement of the TWC teams. They tend to leave a lot of the hard work to the Front Row and are more selective in their Defensive Ruck involvement. This could explain why they are so quick on the rebound after a turnover due to the impact of these strong ball runners (Kaino, Read, Missam and even McCaw).
+ Generally the Spirit Backs have 20% - 25% of the ruck involvements during a game.
+ I've not provided any separate stats for Backs but happy to answer any specific queries.
+ The rather frantic pace of the NRC certainly gives rise to a lot more ruck involvements.
+ There is a general stand-off on Defensive Rucks unless there is a clear opportunity to earn a turn-over. There were some good turn-overs earned against the Vikings. I think Gus Cottrell was the only player to earn two. Others earning turnovers included: RH-P, AHall, FvW, RHardwick. There may have been more but easy to lose focus as I'm usually looking for the next point of contact.
+ If you pick those from the Spirit with the most ruck involvements for each position they are getting involved in about 30% of the Defensive Rucks. Does this high involvement mean that they are leaving holes in the Defensive Line?
+ The All Blacks (23%), Boks (19%) and Wallabies (24%) average fewer Defensive Ruck involvements.
+ Have provided the Western Force 2015 stats below for comparison. They averaged ~20% Def rucks.

+ I am unaware of any complete player stats being available for the NRC games. Anybody know of any?



I will compile another comparison after the last home and away game.

Any surprises or comments?

[GIGS20]

Yeah, I'm surprised at how high the impact figures are. I can only assume that means that the players are being very selective about their ruck involvement.

Personally, I would say that we've had out worst year for effectiveness at the ruck (effectiveness being us getting the ball out of the ruck vs them getting the ball)

I don't think we win enough of our own ball, and I don't think we've been as good as we have in the past at generating turnovers.

If this is true (and its solely based upon my gut feel) that how does a high impact from pretty much every forward translate? All i can think is that the rucks where we lose the ball are ones where only one man is fighting manfully against a bunch or where nobody is there at all. Either that or what you are counting as impact needs to be tightened up.

[andrewg]

Yeah, I'm surprised at how high the impact figures are. I can only assume that means that the players are being very selective about their ruck involvement.

Personally, I would say that we've had out worst year for effectiveness at the ruck (effectiveness being us getting the ball out of the ruck vs them getting the ball)

I don't think we win enough of our own ball, and I don't think we've been as good as we have in the past at generating turnovers.

If this is true (and its solely based upon my gut feel) that how does a high impact from pretty much every forward translate? All i can think is that the rucks where we lose the ball are ones where only one man is fighting manfully against a bunch or where nobody is there at all. Either that or what you are counting as impact needs to be tightened up.

Totally agree Gigs but I included the Impact item to be able to exclude those who arrive and do nothing more than arrive at the ruck and do nothing (including not even looking at the opposition). Skelton may have an Impact on many rucks but is lying on the opposition being Effective?

But I agree with your comment, I think, the players are being more selective in their ruck involvement, particularly for Defensive rucks. This has been a growing trend over the past 12-18 months. It really started happening towards the end of TRC and OEY Tests in 2014.

It would be great to have an Effectiveness statistic but as I comment, it's just too hard. Two pillars standing each side of the player guarding the ball, braced and looking for where an attack may come are having impact - as they MAY be preventing an attack. If there is no attack does that mean that they shouldn't have even joined the ruck? I'm no mind-reader. Turnovers also is only one measure. Was the ball effectively slowed down? Was it made available quickly enough for the subsequent attack? There's a lot of combinations and permutations.
However, some aspects are getting picked up by other stats such as Penalties.

If you look at the Force stats there are much fewer 100% Impact numbers as these are based on a lot more games. The NRC stats are based on only 4 games.

So far the Spirit often has too few players getting involved in many rucks, they are working hard and having an impact but may not be even slowing down the ball as they are simply outnumbered. The Spirit has had games with perhaps only a single turnover.

It's a problem with even getting an Arrival stat. The Arrival stat here is 1st or 2nd of the Spirit to arrive - there may be already 3 of the opposition at the ruck.

I've found that I can only focus on one team at a time. Which means that I watch the game separately for each team. Otherwise just too time consuming. The camera angles are often terrible and in the NRC, in particular, I often replay a ruck 3 times to ensure that I get the players correctly identified.

In the same way, arriving early doesn't necessarily mean a good chance of Turnover. The first guys may achieve the effective cleanout and the 3rd or 4th achieves the turnover.

For me the numbers have been collected for >12 months and as I do them all there is at least some consistency.
But I take on board your comments - perhaps I'm being too lenient as I note my Impact figures were a lot lower in last years EOY Tests.
(Better get my head into gear for the RWC!)

I'm very open to suggestions but they need to be realistic regarding the amount of time they take to collect. Some people have suggested a complex matrix which would take many hours to collate. Good on them - go for it I say. I haven't the time for that. I'd love to be able to just read their data.

I first started collecting just the ruck involvements (Attack & Defense) as this was my main interest. They are unavailable from any other source. IMO ALL Forwards, the workhorses, should be very active in rucks, tackles and carrying the ball safely (even if only a few metres) into contact and hopefully over the advantage line. However, even at Test level my perception was that some Forwards leave the hard work to others. Collecting these stats has proved that to be so.

Ignore the timing and impact if you prefer.
However, I'm open to suggestions for better interpretations of Timing and Impact, but they have to be practical and time effective.
(otherwise I'll get kicked out of the family home!)

For the NRC I HAVE NOT been collecting Ruck stats for the opposition as my main interest is in the Spirit players.
As you know for Test matches I collect stats for both sides. I will be doing that for the Wallaby Tests at the RWC.

[GIGS20]

No, actually quite the opposite Andrew, I was thinking the cause for high 'impact' and low effectiveness/turnover, whatever you want to call it was more the former.

Perhaps this change in the way players select which ruck to join might require a change in your interpretation of impact, however I remember a coach who I respect greatly as being a quality rugby mind constantly reminding players to pick the right ruck to join...no point joining a ruck which we've already won, even less point joining a ruck which we're losing.

If this is an indication that the players are being effective in that selection, it won't matter what you're measure is, they'll end up with high numbers regardless of the outcome of each ruck, because they won't be adding their body to the rucks which look like they're going to join, only to be bound and slow out once the ball inevitably goes to the other team.

I guess that's the issue with taking stats such as this in isolation of the other team's performance. It would be a fairly easy comparison once the opposition numbers are there showing how many rucks each team had and won. If the numbers are skewed against the spirit in that measure it would indicate that they are indeed choosing not to join a 'lost cause' ruck.

If that's the case, I would propose redefining "early" rather than impact....ie "early" means arriving to the ruck 1st 2nd 3rd or 4th of ALL players. that way Early and impact is much more likely to equal effectiveness.

All this being said, I appreciate the work you do and only wish I had the time to add to it myself.

[andrewg]

No, actually quite the opposite Andrew, I was thinking the cause for high 'impact' and low effectiveness/turnover, whatever you want to call it was more the former.

Perhaps this change in the way players select which ruck to join might require a change in your interpretation of impact, however I remember a coach who I respect greatly as being a quality rugby mind constantly reminding players to pick the right ruck to join...no point joining a ruck which we've already won, even less point joining a ruck which we're losing.

If this is an indication that the players are being effective in that selection, it won't matter what you're measure is, they'll end up with high numbers regardless of the outcome of each ruck, because they won't be adding their body to the rucks which look like they're going to join, only to be bound and slow out once the ball inevitably goes to the other team.

Agree with all of this Gigs especially about players being selective about the rucks that they join or not join.
What I realised I've been doing is being so crapped off by players, especially front rowers, arriving so late and having no impact that I have inadvertently stopped counting their ruck involvement and hence not giving them zero "impact". This will be remedied in future games.

I guess that's the issue with taking stats such as this in isolation of the other team's performance. It would be a fairly easy comparison once the opposition numbers are there showing how many rucks each team had and won. If the numbers are skewed against the Spirit in that measure it would indicate that they are indeed choosing not to join a 'lost cause' ruck.

For Tests and SXV, ESPN give an account of total rucks and rucks won by each team. I don't need to replicate this. They also give Turnovers conceded but not won data. Unfortunately ESPN is not collecting Stats for the NRC but perhaps that will come.
I will continue to look at individual ruck involvement by Forwards.

If that's the case, I would propose redefining "early" rather than impact....ie "early" means arriving to the ruck 1st 2nd 3rd or 4th of ALL players. that way Early and impact is much more likely to equal effectiveness.

I hear what you're saying but have tried doing this and just too hard as too time consuming and the NRC TV coverage is very poor quality as too many long shots and low picture quality and totally missing the initial engagement of some rucks.
I can certainly confirm that arrival time DOES NOT equate to EFFECTIVENESS for the majority of players as their breakdown skills in the NRC are often poor. There is just too much away from/off-the-ball activity.
The Spirit's away strip, with the yellow numbers makes player identification difficult - for example. To do this for both teams (when I know few of the opposition players) is simply too time consuming.
I'll leave determining the arrival time for all players to others.

[GIGS20]

Fair one, I certainly don't want to put you off what you're doing, I know I don't have the cojones to pull together such detailed stats.

Had to at the completely not counting involvements skewing the impact stat...visions of Cliffy Palu much!