Busting the myths around Australia’s hardworking (or not..) props
Roar Guru By PeterK, 27 Jun 2012 PeterK is a Roar Guru
On the popular TV show Mythbusters, popularly held beliefs are tested with experiments and data. There are three outcomes: Confirmed, plausible, and busted.
I will look at common myths in relation to Props using available stats for the Super Rugby season to date.
The stats have a common scale of per 80 mins to mimic a complete match, so you can compare players who played less minutes.
I’ve looked across the board at all relevant stats and will try to answer some of the common myths about the key props: Benn Robinson, Sekope Kepu, Ben Alexander, Dan Palmer, James Slipper, Greg Holmes, Ben Daley and Salesi Ma’afu.
Prop myths: (note I am not looking at scrummaging)
- Robinson, Kepu, Palmer, Maafu have a low contribution / effort.
- Alexander contributes the most in general play.
- Kepu has the most impact out of tight-head props (THPs).
- Holmes is underrated.
|
Player
|
Tackles
|
Runs
|
Rucks
|
Total Effort
|
|
Robinson
|
8.77
|
4.87
|
3.91
|
=17.54736
|
|
Kepu
|
10.25
|
3.56
|
2.87
|
16.68
|
|
Alexander
|
10.79
|
6.60
|
4.91
|
22.30
|
|
Palmer
|
11.45
|
2.77
|
2.77
|
16.98
|
|
Slipper
|
7.94
|
4.62
|
4.71
|
17.27
|
|
Holmes
|
11.71
|
7.11
|
5.85
|
24.67
|
|
Daley
|
12.42
|
5.78
|
5.49
|
23.68
|
|
Maafu
|
7.63
|
4.28
|
3.82
|
15.72
|
- Maafu has a low contribution rate? Confirmed.
- Robinson, Kepu and Palmer have a low contribution rate? Plausible.
- Alexander contributes the most? Busted, Holmes and Daley work harder.
| Player | Tackle Busts | Offloads | Linebreaks | Pilfers | Pos. Impact |
| Robinson |
0.48
|
0.56
|
0.00
|
0.32
|
=1.04
|
| Kepu |
0.69
|
0.43
|
0.26
|
0.00
|
1.39
|
| Alexander |
0.36
|
0.36
|
0.09
|
0.18
|
0.80
|
| Palmer |
0.13
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.13
|
| Slipper |
1.05
|
0.09
|
0.09
|
0.00
|
1.22
|
| Holmes |
1.25
|
0.98
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
2.23
|
| Daley |
1.01
|
0.14
|
0.00
|
0.14
|
1.16
|
| Maafu |
0.23
|
0.12
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.35
|
- Kepu has the most impact out of THPs? Confirmed. Palmer and Maafu are woeful.
- Holmes is underrated? Confirmed.
- Holmes has the highest total effort and has the most impact. Considering he is a better scrummager than Slipper and Alexander he should be picked. Perhaps his age is held against him.
| Player | Errors | Penalties | Neg. Impact | Miss Tackle (%) |
| Robinson | 0.24 | 1.28 | =1.52 | 9.84 |
| Kepu | 0.43 | 0.69 | 1.13 | 10.61 |
| Alexander | 0.27 | 0.80 | 1.07 | 14.18 |
| Palmer | 0.13 | 0.63 | 0.75 | 17.27 |
| Slipper | 0.09 | 0.61 | 0.70 | 9.00 |
| Holmes | 0.00 | 1.81 | 1.81 | 7.69 |
| Daley | 0.00 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 4.44 |
| Maafu | 0.23 | 1.62 | 1.85 | 15.38 |
Finally for completeness the negative aspects. Of note is the percentage of missed tackles by Alexander, Palmer and Maafu.
The Crowd Says (18) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
June 27th 2012 @ 8:20pm
The Werewolf said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
Cheers for this. Very interesting reading.
Can you say where you go these stats and are they based just on this years super rugby?
I think your assertion that Holmes sis a better scrummager although possibly true goes against the grain of having statistical analysis. I get the feeling that you’ve set out to prove Holmes should be in the side. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I would suggest all this analysis leads to one conclusion. Whomever is the best scrummager should get picked at Prop as their stats apart from Maafu are much of a muchness on the whole.
June 28th 2012 @ 12:00am
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 12:00am | Report comment
most of the stats are from fox fantasy.
Yes only based on this years super rugby.
No I never set out for Holmes that he should be in the side. AFTER I did these stats I was amazed he worked so hard, it changed my mind.
Plamer has terrible stats in terms of effort, positive impact and missed tackles, so I dont agree the results are a much of a muchness.
June 28th 2012 @ 8:00pm
The Werewolf said | June 28th 2012 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Yes at a second glance perhaps Palmer’s missed tackles are bad but his effort is not poor. He’s making 11 tackles a game. That’s fairly spectacular for a prop. In terms of carries we must take into consideration that the brumbies use Moore as their go to guy for carries. It is also important to note that most stats for rucks are only first to the ruck and tackles first man in.
i’d also suggest that the middle table is almost irrelevent for props. tackle busts? off loads? line breaks? c’mon these aren’t deal breakers.
He is a good scrummager which is the most important thing so I’d have him on the wallaby bench at the moment.
I don’t think Holmes is a good enough scrummager for tests which is probably why he is not in the wallaby set up.
We needed Slipper to come on in terms of scrummaging!
June 28th 2012 @ 10:10pm
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
look at jeznes evaluation , he thinks Holmes is the second best LHP just behind Robinson in terms of scrumaging.
If that is the case then combined with his work rate he should be there.
June 29th 2012 @ 12:28am
The Werewolf said | June 29th 2012 @ 12:28am | Report comment
Yes but he isn’t and one must assume that Deans and co know a bit more than Jeznes.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:10pm
SkinnyKid said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
Lets face it. The only real issue is TH. I say against a strong pack and or a wet track Palmer should start with Kepu in the bench. Reverse that on a dry track against a weaker pack.
The LH’s you can cover with a blanket really. Kepu can play either side so he great for the bench to cover LH too.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:29pm
David Morgan said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
It’s good to have a statistical rather than impressionistic assessment of player performance, but . . . Statistics don’t tell the whole story. For example — looking at a couple of players who aren’t props — in 2011 two of the players at the top of the missed tackle count were Cooper Vuna and Nick Phipps. This year Vuna is way down the list. It’s true that his tackling technique has improved but mostly it’s because *he’s not attempting tackles*. In part that’s because someone, presumably John Muggleton, has shown him how to use the touchline as his friend instead bursting out of the line in an attempt to make spot tackles, like he did last year. But it’s also because his opposing winger is often tackled by a centre coming across (usually Mitch Inman when he hasn’t been injured). Sometimes that’s because the opponent, seeing no room on the outside (good work, Cooper!), cuts back. But often it’s because Vuna is holding so far back the centre needs to make the tackle.
Similarly, Nick Phipps is nowhere near as high on the list in 2012, although he is still missing a fair number of tackles. That makes him sound like a poor defender. I don’t think he is, even though he’s not in the class of Luke Burgess or Will Genia. Rather, it’s because his role is the cover defender, trying to bring down any opponent who makes a break. That means almost all the tackles he misses are from side on or behind the runner. He rarely gets to put a shoulder in and so falls off tackles or slows an opponent rather than stopping him.
In both cases the statistics tell part of the story, but only part. You actually need a qualitative assessment to make sense of the statistics.
June 28th 2012 @ 12:02am
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 12:02am | Report comment
true.
But most of the stats are ones that are dont rely much on context ie effort. How much they do altogether ie tackles, runs and rucks added to gether. Whether they work hard in defence or attack doesnt rely on context. Nor positive impact ie breaking tackles, offloads etc.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:28pm
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Interesting analysis. I may have rushed to judgement with Holmesy.
Still, I would love to see a comparison of these fellows to the leading All Black and South African props (but no pressure! :p).
June 28th 2012 @ 12:03am
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 12:03am | Report comment
that wont happen.
I have done a similar analysis on backrows (Palu, Higginbotham, Pocock, McCalman, Dennis and Mowen), and Hookers (TPN, Moore, Hanson and Charles). Unfortunately the editors wont be posting them saying the formatting of the tables takes too much time.
June 28th 2012 @ 8:31am
Mick said | June 28th 2012 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Are you able to take a screenshot of the table in Excel, then post the .jpg with this screenshot?
It’d be great to get your stats and analysis on the rest of the pack!
June 28th 2012 @ 12:19pm
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Mick – The stats for the rest of the pack have been posted in 2 more articles
June 28th 2012 @ 7:25am
DanBear said | June 28th 2012 @ 7:25am | Report comment
This article indicates the problem Australians have with props. Their single most important contribution to the game is their scrummaging. It doesn’t matter how many linebreaks, tackles or runs they make scrummaging is their main focus. Their secondary focus is lifting in the lineout all other concerns follow distantly. They should not be judged by any of the categories PeterK has listed. The rugby viewing public needs to learn that in order for Australia to dominate other teams we must first dominate the scrums/forward play, this article demonstrates the total lack of knowledge we Australians have when it comes to props and the intricacies of scrummaging
June 28th 2012 @ 8:33am
Mick said | June 28th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
In his defence, his intro does state: “note: I am not looking at scrummaging”.
Scrums are extremely important, probably 60% of a prop’s game, but all the other stuff adds up too.
June 28th 2012 @ 10:07am
PeterK said | June 28th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
I agree.
The MOST important play for a prop is the scrum.
That said a lot of posters have views on various props in regards to their work rate etc. I wanted to compare hard facts to peoples perceptions.
These stats are of more importance to backrowers and hookers and locks. I did not do locks.
I have the same info for backrowers and hookers but editors would not post the articles.
June 28th 2012 @ 10:15am
Mike said | June 28th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
“Their single most important contribution to the game is their scrummaging.”
Why? Scrums themselves don’t make a great deal of difference to the game – they are just one facet of a complex game. So why should scrummaging be the most important focus of a Prop?
And yes, I am being a little bit mischievous here, since I do actually think scrummaging ability is important for a prop. But we have to think about our assumptions, not just blindly adopt them. Take this statement for example: “Their secondary focus is lifting in the lineout all other concerns follow distantly.” – Ummm, no, not “distantly”. A prop who is a liability in general play will be found out, the opponents will go through him and the game will be lost. That is not necessarily the case with a poor scrummager.
In my view, the job of a prop is the same as for all the forwards: To win possession and create space. The prop does that by winning at the scrum, the lineout and in general play.
I also disagree with your emphasis for another reason: It gives the impression that the prop is the main engine for scrum success. But scrums are won by a pack, not just by the props. Part of our problem with Wallaby scrums recently has been because the seconds and backrowers didn’t take their own responsibilities in the scrum seriously enough.
June 28th 2012 @ 8:39am
Mike said | June 28th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I don’t know that I will form my entire views on our props from these figures (and I doubt that was Peter K’s intention) but they are certainly very interesting!
July 1st 2012 @ 10:29am
tonysalerno said | July 1st 2012 @ 10:29am | Report comment
That was a very interesting article- very good statistics and an interesting process of analysis.
Can’t argue with the facts i suppose. Holmes is underrated and Maafu is Woeful.