Live scores
Live Commentary
Waratahs : 34
vs
Stormers : 27
| Fulltime

Wallabies: Tight five, possession, and Michael Hooper

Scott Allen Columnist

By Scott Allen, Scott Allen is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , ,

193 Have your say

Popular article! 6,408 reads

    Modern day rugby fans yearn for the glory days - but were those days really that glorious? (AAP Image/NZN IMAGE, SNPA, John Cowpland)

    Related coverage

    Are there any trends or statistics from the two Bledisloe matches so far this season that give us a better insight into performance?

    The tight five ball carriers
    One of the most common questions regarding the current Wallaby pack has been which, if any, of the tight five players can be the big ball carriers the Wallabies need.

    In the first two Bledisloe Cup matches of 2013 it’s been James Horwill that’s stepped up to do the majority of the ball carrying and has been the clear leader in metres gained as you can see in the graph below.

    The problem with this sort of comparison is the amount of time each player has been on the field to rack up these numbers and which period of the game they played.

    Another way to compare players now that we’ve got data from two matches is the ‘Per 80 Minute’ measure which averages out the involvements over an 80 minute period to eliminate the disparity in time played.

    Of course there’s no way to account for the fact that players who played more minutes would have tired when playing for longer than another player who played for a shorter period so it’s best to compare starters against starters and reserves against reserves.

    I’ve also included the average metres per carry in the graph and on that basis it’s James Slipper who’s been the most effective of the Wallabies tight five.

    Click on the button alongside the different measures in the graph to see how the players stack up under the different measures.

    Horwill and Stephen Moore have also been prominent on that measure.

    Slipper’s scrummaging has been good and it’s going to be difficult for Benn Robinson to get back into the starting team. Although Scott Sio has done nothing wrong I do think Robinson would be a good option for the bench against South Africa with his experience.

    However, the problem with the Wallabies scrum has been on the tighthead side, not the loosehead side where Robinson plays exclusively so although I’d like to see him on the bench I don’t see him as the solution to the scrummaging woes.

    Can you win matches with the lower share of possession?
    In the two Bledisloe Cup matches between the Wallabies and the All Blacks we’ve seen the team with the lower share of possession coming out on top with the All Blacks averaging 48% of possession across the two matches.

    In Super Rugby this year the Chiefs had the lowest share of possession in the regular season averaging 47%. It was again the Chiefs with the lowest possession of the six teams during the finals series with 48%. The Brumbies were the next lowest in the finals series with 49%.

    In the Lions series it was the Lions who averaged 46% of possession and in the 2011 RWC the winning teams in the knockout stages had 45% of possession. The All Blacks won the final with 44% possession and the Wallabies won the playoff for third place with just 36% possession.

    The numbers I’ve listed regarding 2013 are based on the number of phases each team had the ball in their possession which I believe is the best measure rather than the number of times each team started possession with the ball or the minutes they had possession of the ball.

    The trend in the game as to whether it’s better to play with the ball, or without it, is a changing one. It depends on the interpretation of the laws at the breakdown, and the trend at the moment appears to be that having more possession is not a key to the game.

    The Wallabies still have more tweaking to do to get the balance of their kicking game right but I doubt the Springboks will end up with more possession than the Wallabies when they meet in two weeks as their game plan revolves around not having the ball.

    Michael Hooper update
    Last week I showed you some statistics comparing the work rate of Michael Hooper with Richie McCaw. Some readers suggested it was wrong to question the performance of one of the Wallabies’ best players, particularly when other commentators were praising him so highly. Others complained that I hadn’t included involvements in defensive rucks in that comparison so it was misleading and unfair to Hooper.

    After the second match I’ve updated the numbers to include defensive rucks for both matches.

    Looking back to previous articles I’ve written I undertook exactly the same analysis comparing David Pocock’s work rate on the same basis against McCaw after the 2011 RWC semi-final between the Wallabies and All Blacks. I thought it may be interesting to update the current analysis by including that data.

    The data for Hooper and McCaw in 2013 in the graph below is on a ‘Per 80 Minute’ basis across both Bledisloe matches. Both Pocock and McCaw played the full 80 minutes in the 2011 match so the numbers are a good comparison.

    New Zealand's Richie McCaw, top, gets the upper hand on his Australian open side counterpart Michael Hooper

    New Zealand’s Richie McCaw, top, gets the upper hand on his open side counterpart Australia’s Michael Hooper during the first Bledisloe Cup Test in 2013 (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

    Whilst Hooper is a good player this shows how much the Wallabies miss a player like Pocock who can really challenge McCaw.

    In 153 minutes of rugby over the two matches so far this season McCaw had 115 involvements (17 carries, 32 attempted tackles, 39 attacking rucks and 27 defensive rucks) whereas Hooper played 156 minutes and had 64 involvements (10 carries, 12 attempted tackles, 25 attacking rucks and 17 defensive rucks). McCaw’s involvements over the two matches were 80% higher than that of Hooper.

    In the second match Hooper had fewer involvements than in the first match and had less than half the involvements of McCaw – 28 compared to 59!

    McCaw looks fresh after his recent sabbatical and remains the benchmark number seven in world rugby. Regardless of the terrific work Hooper does at times for the Wallabies he doesn’t have the ‘incredible’ work rate many claim he has and if he can lift his work rate it will be a real bonus for the Wallabies.

    Scott Allen
    Scott Allen

    Scott has been a rugby contributor with The Roar since 2013. After taking some time out to pursue other roles in the game, including coaching Premier Grade with University of Queensland and the Wallaroos at the recent World Cup, he’s returned to give us his insights. You can follow him on Twitter @ScottA_ to hear more from him.

    This video could win $10,000!

    It's one of the favourites to take out the Club Roar most popular video award on Monday!

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (193)

    • August 29th 2013 @ 2:38am
      Shop said | August 29th 2013 @ 2:38am | ! Report

      As always very informative Scott – almost too many stats!

      Can Slipper play TH? I used to think he was another in the mould of Dunning/Baxter but he has really impressed me of late. We are in desperate need of a rock at TH, perhaps he is the answer. Where does he play for QLD?

      • Roar Guru

        August 29th 2013 @ 8:46am
        Red Kev said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:46am | ! Report

        Yeah THP is a real worry. James Slipper does play there for the Reds (and certainly the Reds’ scrum woes are nearly always on Greg Holmes’ side not Slipper’s) but there are concerns about him making that step up to Test Rugby. I know Jeznez and Bob Dwyer always talk about Slipper as a LHP and that is also where Robbie Deans used him. With Dan Palmer gone overseas we may need to look to Slipper at no.3 through, especially when Sio matures to the point that he has to start.

      • Columnist

        August 29th 2013 @ 9:09am
        Scott Allen said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:09am | ! Report

        Slipper plays tighthead for the Reds. I’m of the view that he’s a better tighthead than loosehead – yes I know there are many who disagree. I’ve asked him directly which side he prefers and he is comfortable with either.

        My view is based on the way he’s developed his technique and body position over the last two seasons. The one thing we all worry about is his lack of size but Owen Franks is the same height and only 5kgs heavier and he is performing well for the All Blacks.

        I think Franks has great technique and that he he is able to use his technique because the middle row of the All Blacks provides him with such great support. The Wallabies middle row isn’t providing great support to any of our props.

        We have to look at options at tighthead so Slipper may be the option. However, I was told last night that Slipper’s nose is broken and that he may not make it for the match against the Springboks.

        • Roar Guru

          August 29th 2013 @ 9:27am
          Red Kev said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:27am | ! Report

          Please tell me Beale took another swing at a teammate!

          • Columnist

            August 29th 2013 @ 9:43am
            Scott Allen said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:43am | ! Report

            Nonu’s shoulder got the nose as well

            • August 29th 2013 @ 6:59pm
              Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:59pm | ! Report

              If you are going to deliberately head butt Nonu in the shoulder you better do it properly. Disgraceful display of sportsmanship by Slipper and he should have copped a ban.
              I bet Nonu has a bruise and everything.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 7:01pm
                Mike said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:01pm | ! Report

                I feel your compatriot’s pain, Tane.

                Ma’a’s mascara was running, must have been quite a hit.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 7:28pm
              Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:28pm | ! Report

              Hes a sensitive man Mike.
              Hes not used to being bullied like that.
              Nonu just wants to be able to put on a bit of make up and play a nice game of footy without being attacked by crazed props like Slipper.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 10:16am
          Terry Kidd said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:16am | ! Report

          Rob Simmons seems to be playing ok in the loose and at the line out but he packs in the scrum behind the THP. Could this be the issue on the TH side of the scrum?

          • Columnist

            August 29th 2013 @ 11:08am
            Scott Allen said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:08am | ! Report

            Terry, Simmons is playing loosehead lock, not tighthead.

        • Roar Guru

          August 29th 2013 @ 12:36pm
          jeznez said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:36pm | ! Report

          Real shame if Slipper misses the next match as I am keen to see him trialled at TH and Robinson brought back to the LH side sooner rather than later.

          I’m in that other camp that thinks Slipper is a better LH but I agree his TH play has enormously improved.

          Hanging my hat on him being a better loosehead based on this article recently which received a single gloat of a comment from myself – I just couldn’t help myself.

          He says in the last two lines of the article:

          “I really do enjoy loosehead, I’ve played most of my Wallaby career there.

          “I do find it a tad easier.”

          http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/15/slipper-ready-to-start-for-wallabies/

          • August 29th 2013 @ 1:35pm
            Adsa said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:35pm | ! Report

            Jez
            Slipper handled himself very well against Woodcock in the Reds V Chiefs game earlier in the year. I acknowledge the different standard between super & tests however we need to try a new no.3 and he is ready.
            Slippers Wallyb debut was against the Martin Johnson coached English side in 2010, I watched him come on in Sydney from the stands after Salesi Maufu was yellow carded for collapsing, he held his side up against a brute of a pommy scrum when we only were packing with 7 players.

            • Roar Guru

              August 29th 2013 @ 2:56pm
              jeznez said | August 29th 2013 @ 2:56pm | ! Report

              Salesi improved out of sight that season though – he was rock solid against the Woodcock for the AB’s in Sydney in the last test he played. Was disappointed that he got dropped just as he started to show promise.

              Slipper has had a really good showing this season at TH – he was very poor against the French at TH last year but I think after this season’s Super performances he should be tried at 3 to see if he can be an improvement on BA and Kepu.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 5:23pm
                Ajax said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:23pm | ! Report

                Ma’afu had a good game against the South Africans as well, Ive been really suprised that he hasnt been in the mix of late.. he is a huge huge man. He really was one worth persevering with I thought.

                And I thought during the England game he suffered with having a smallish hooker next to him. Personal opinion mind you.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 8:16pm
                Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:16pm | ! Report

                Well I cant understand why you guys want to drop a player everytime he has a bad game against teams that have better players.
                If I was going to do any dropping of players in the front row it would be Sio for Robinson.
                Ive said it before and I will say it again, Alexander, Kepu, Slipper and Robinson are your best props. No matter how many times you swap them around or drop them its not going to change until a better player is produced. Just because they sometimes struggle does not mean you have better.
                In game 1 & 2 vs Lions the Wallaby scrum was good and so it was in Bledisloe 1.

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:33pm
                jeznez said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:33pm | ! Report

                Tane – I agreed with giving Alexander first crack in Bledisloe 1 but when he was poor in that game I thought he should be dropped. Now that he has apparently been worse in game 2 I think it has to happen (I didn’t see game 2 but the reports are pretty clear cut).

                Keep Sio, bring Robinson back onto the LH side and we can trial Slipper at TH based on the fact he has had his best year of scrummaging at TH at Super level.

                You can state who you think is best but then you shouldn’t have too much problem with us wanting to trial someone else in the position. If you are right trialling the other players will quickly confirm who is right and that player keeps the jersey.

                Under your model you would only trial other players if there was an injury to an incumbent. That is something I cannot understand. If we are struggling in an area then we cast the net wider and look at our other options.

                Palmer is injured and leaving but that still leaves Slipper, Ma’afu, Ryan, Weekes and Owen as options to look at for TH. Not having those blokes in camp and seeing how they stack up is the criminal.

                You comment about ” No matter how many times you swap them around or drop them ” has Alexander ever been dropped? He has missed through injury but he has rarely been excluded from a match day squad when fit since he took over the position from Baxter back in 2009.

                He hasn’t been getting dropped – he has consistently been in the shirt and at times there has been no one else available – that isn’t the case now.

              • August 30th 2013 @ 1:30am
                Ben.S said | August 30th 2013 @ 1:30am | ! Report

                Ma’afu is in Northampton with the Saints, Jez.

              • Roar Guru

                August 30th 2013 @ 1:56am
                jeznez said | August 30th 2013 @ 1:56am | ! Report

                One more off the list then – still a number of decent options to try.

              • August 30th 2013 @ 6:31am
                Ben.S said | August 30th 2013 @ 6:31am | ! Report

                Well, it might really, really improve him. He”ll be playing with Corbisiero and Hartley if he makes the starting XV. I recall people were peturbed when the Saints brought in Mujati, and he developed into one of the best tightheads in Europe. Goodness knows why the Boks aren’t selecting him if they are able. That said, David Fitter and Tim Fairbrother lasted no time at all. We shall see.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 3:08pm
              Two Bob's Worth said | August 29th 2013 @ 3:08pm | ! Report

              woodcock plaid for the Highlanders this season and has never plaid for the Chiefs.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 3:24pm
                Red Kev said | August 29th 2013 @ 3:24pm | ! Report

                Well if he’s going to go around wearing plaid he belongs at the Highlanders (or with the girls)

              • August 29th 2013 @ 7:01pm
                Mike said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:01pm | ! Report

                🙂

        • Roar Guru

          August 29th 2013 @ 5:38pm
          sheek said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:38pm | ! Report

          Hi Scott,

          Great stuff as usual.

          Just as an aside I read your analysis of the ARU 2012 financial statement on another blogsite! Scary stuff – the financial statement, that is.

          I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Topo Rodriguez, who has the firm view (on just about everything besides!) that a prop is not worth anything unless he can play both sides of the scrum.

          Whether that’s still relevant in 2013 I don’t know, but I would presume so. Incidentally, for a bit of useless trivia, Topo played almost exclusively at tight-head for the Pumas & almost exclusively at loose-head for the Wallabies.

          The possession argument is an interesting one. It seems that counter-attacking, because of the ways teams line up flat defensively, is now a much more preferred means of attack than in the past.

          Also, teams may be trying to hold possession less so as to remove the lottery of the ref penalising them on a whim. 😉

          I guess the plan is to get quick turnover ball, counter-attack & score a try before the ref finds any unknown-fault-to-anyone-else infraction!

      • August 29th 2013 @ 9:47am
        Buk said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:47am | ! Report

        Scott your analysis is always informative and seemingly uninfluenced by emotive or “one-hit-wonder” or personal preference type arguments. (Unlike mine !) Thanks.

    • Roar Pro

      August 29th 2013 @ 4:33am
      Moreton Bait said | August 29th 2013 @ 4:33am | ! Report

      Very good as usual Scott. Well done mate!

      TH prop is one of the big issues for the Wallabies and has been for a very long time. I keep wishing we had another Topo or even Noriega and Toutai back at #8. Slipper was always an outstanding prospect, largely because we don’t have too many, just as Sio has stepped up and more than met expectations raised in his U19 performances. Most props do take a little longer to impress at senior level – Alo-Emile is taking longer than I originally thought. Jono Owen had a good game v the Brit & I Lions at TH.

      So Slipper syas he feels more confortable on the LH side but has scrummed at TH quite a lot for the Reds.

      LH seems well covered with Slipper and Sio (+Robinson not finished yet). But TH????? Maafu?

      Perhaps Slipper should start at TH with Sio at LH and Kepu and Robinson on the bench.

      What is Douglas doing if he’s not carrying? And many on here constantly question the value Simmons brings…seriously!

    • August 29th 2013 @ 5:46am
      mania said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:46am | ! Report

      wow scott, bizarre. i cannot get over how anti hooper you are.
      your analysis is really unfair. your not measuring the effectiveness of hoopers contributions. sure a turnover ball counts as just one involvement but when that turnover effectively stops all the ABs momentum then its worth more than just one contibution.
      comparing anyone to richie mccaw isnt a good indication.
      pocock is injured. he doesnt even come into the equation.

      • August 29th 2013 @ 7:00am
        Rob G said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:00am | ! Report

        Don’t worry mania. Scott’s “statistics” always have a Queensland focus. He’s just pushing for gill.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 7:06am
          rl said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:06am | ! Report

          grab the kleenex lads. Perhaps Hooper is the new Quade!!!

          • August 29th 2013 @ 8:00pm
            Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:00pm | ! Report

            Hooper being outplayed by the best player who has ever played?!
            Obviously this means Hooper is useless.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 7:16am
          mania said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:16am | ! Report

          its just bizarre rob. i’m not a stats junky for this very reason. looking at stats u can twist them to portray any perspective you choose.
          the analysis of the first bled game was bizar when it resulted in hooper being lazy. WTF? hooper single handedly owned the ABs forward pack in the first half of the bled1. he outplayed mccaw in that half. he set up a long range try, turned over crucial momentum stopping ball.
          whilst the analysis has been done pretty well in general, the anti hooper twist is glaringly obvious and really subjective.
          i’ve been a gill fan for the past couple of seasons, but the hooper that played bled 1 and 2 is a step up from his usual one dimensional play. ppl go on about how hooper doesnt have a turn over game and is only good for ball carrying. yet when he does get crucial turnovers he’s labelled as lazy.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 8:51am
            Elisha Pearce said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:51am | ! Report

            You’re right about ‘weighting’ of the involvements Mania. Not saying Hooper has been better than McCaw- he hasn’t – but compared to the rest of the Wallabies pack he does things that impact the game more than a tick in the column related to that action.

            Having said that, the workrate is still worth looking at. It needs to come from somewhere, if it’s not Hooper (who seems to be making ‘bigger’ plays) then it needs to come from somewhere else.

            The differing idea is this: do you have to have as many involvements as possible so you are statistically more likely to have a great impact on one of them? Or can you pick and choose your spots to have a greater impact on a smaller number of involvements?

            • August 29th 2013 @ 9:02am
              mania said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:02am | ! Report

              elisha – excuse my bias but no one is better thn mccaw. however hooper was motm and deserves his place in the side.
              and your correct that the weighting i’m giving for hoopers turnovers is probably higher than what scott gives but they were awesome turnovers that stopped the ABs in their tracks who then had to start building momentum up all over again.
              basically hooper pssed me off with the amount of times he kept turning up and foiling the ABs attack. anyone who psses me off that much has the goods to be a better than average player.
              whilst ive been a gill fan for awhile, hooper now making turnovers tends to lean my support in his direction.
              work rate is just as important a stat but its still only a stat. watching the game is much better than looking at stats .

              • Columnist

                August 29th 2013 @ 9:49am
                Elisha Pearce said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:49am | ! Report

                Mania, sorry if I seemed to be fence-sitting but I do agree with you.
                I think some actions are more valuable and Hooper did some things that far outweigh a tick in a stat column. I was just trying to start where you did and bring the convo to the next logical conclusion.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 10:16am
                mania said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:16am | ! Report

                not at all elisha. nothing to be sorry for.
                “I think some actions are more valuable and Hooper did some things that far outweigh a tick in a stat column.” fully agree with you and couldnt have said it better

              • August 29th 2013 @ 11:02am
                Peter Clark said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:02am | ! Report

                Maybe Fardy, with another game or two under his belt? His involvement is always on/near the ball, so maybe he can be the other ‘go-to’ man in the forwards?

            • August 29th 2013 @ 10:14am
              scottmit said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:14am | ! Report

              Do your job
              then
              Force the play
              then
              Change the game

              upping your involvements pushes you into the “force the play” level – the stats may give you an indication of this.
              The effectiveness of your involvements pushes you into the “change the game” level. Hooper really has been the only WB player at “gamechanger” level. The stats don’t show that.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 10:58am
                Coops said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:58am | ! Report

                Hypothesis: If Hooper could match Richie’s work rate, and be effective as all of his fans suggest he is, the Wallbies might actually win a test against the All Blacks. Personally I can’t wait for Pocock to be back because then we will see if the hypothesis is correct.

              • Columnist

                August 29th 2013 @ 1:49pm
                Elisha Pearce said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:49pm | ! Report

                I think we can all agree that Hooper is very good. But Pocock is a bit better and McCaw is the best ever.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 2:50pm
                scottmit said | August 29th 2013 @ 2:50pm | ! Report

                I’ve got no issue with any of that (although I have seen Ray Price and Michael Jones play :)). I just wouldn’t drop Hooper because he’s the only one who looks anything like a gamechanger in the WBs at the moment

              • August 29th 2013 @ 11:22pm
                bennalong said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:22pm | ! Report

                I’m a Hooper fan and as I said in response to Scott’s other statistics I can’t believe someone whose presence is so bleedin’ obvious could produce such mediocre stats

                Now he’s done it again.

                Having watched the game again I believe Hooper is trying to emulate McCaw and time his involvements better rather than have a go at everything that moves. This might explain why he has such an impact

                I’m tempted to suggest , Scott that you stick your stats because they run totally against the reality that my eyes, along with the blokes that adjudge best player, perceive.

                If you can please explain why you keep proving Hooper is mediocre when clearly he’s not, I’ll come on board and say how good your articles are

                Until then you seem to me like a public servant gathering data for a politician who wants to prove a point. If the punters see it differently, the stats are meaningless

                Go Michael Hooper!

          • August 29th 2013 @ 3:23pm
            CHT said | August 29th 2013 @ 3:23pm | ! Report

            Scott – You can’t objectively measure the impact by the number of involvements, without looking at the value of said involvements.

            If you measure Hooper by number of turnovers per defensive rucks joined, he will have the highest percentage in the game.

            I can think of many situations where he was first there (O’Connor’s break) by a long shot. He was crucial to the Wallabies efforts.

            Thus, the data is misleading.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 5:08pm
              Jereme Lane said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:08pm | ! Report

              yeah i have to agree with CHT, Scott you’ve done this twice to hooper and in my opinion you’ve overlooked the most important thing. Mckenzie has clearly asked him to be ready to run, whether from a turnover or quick ball he is the wallabies best ballrunner in that backrow. he’s not an immovable object like mccaw or pocock, he uses timing to hit the rucks otherwise he just gets bashed off the ball. thats why you haven’t seen him scrapping every ruck. mowen and fardy did a much better job in bled 2 to compensate but mowen and mcmeniman were awful in bled 1.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 7:32pm
            Kuruki said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:32pm | ! Report

            It depends how you look at things. What is more valuable, a steal, or arriving to a ruck and securing your own possession? IMO they are just as vital so when you say Hoopers steal should be weighted compared to say someone arriving at a ruck and preventing the ball being stolen i have to disagree. McCaw is pretty effective in what he does so the fact he is doing twice as much as Hooper tells me he is probably twice as effective in the balance of the entire game.
            Getting a pilfer is like getting an oscar, everybody knows about it. Arriving at a ruck first and blowing the opposition fetcher off the ball, or arriving first, second or third and securing the ball for your side is just as important but nobody seems to notice these things. That’s why stats are vital in gaining an accurate picture of what is really happening as appose to what your eyes are trained to tell you.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 10:33pm
            Chracol said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:33pm | ! Report

            he set up a long range try????

            • August 30th 2013 @ 2:55pm
              Kuruki said | August 30th 2013 @ 2:55pm | ! Report

              He picked the ball up off the ground and passed it. McCaw scored one.

      • Roar Guru

        August 29th 2013 @ 8:19am
        Anthony Hird said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:19am | ! Report

        IMO Hoops is a more complete player than Pocock. His attacking skills, offloads, supportive runs and running game leave Pococks for dead.
        Pocock is an amazing defender, support player and one of the greats at turning over the pill. If he works on his attacking game then we can claim he is nearly as great as McCaw.
        IMO Pocock has never been better than McCaw. McCaw is truly amazing in all facets of his game. His leadership is impeccable, and he has never failed to lift his fellow players in the tough stages of a match.

        • Roar Guru

          August 29th 2013 @ 8:24am
          Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:24am | ! Report

          The stats above show pocock is a better attacking player….

          • Roar Guru

            August 29th 2013 @ 9:46am
            Anthony Hird said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:46am | ! Report

            I think we need offloads and metres / run.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 1:28pm
            Jerry said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:28pm | ! Report

            Well no, they don’t.

            Just as they don’t actually show that either McCaw or Pocock were better than Hooper. Work rate isn’t the same as effectiveness. Hooper, while not as busy, was significantly more effective in the last two tests than Pocock was in the RWC semi. Is it better to hit 20 rucks making no turnovers or to hit 10 and make 3 turnovers? Most would actually prefer the second.

            McCaw is a significantly better attacking player than Pocock as is Hooper.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 1:43pm
              hoqni said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:43pm | ! Report

              I think Hooper was great in 2nd Bledisloe, but you should hit more rucks as a team, if not points will increase vs your team.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 2:06pm
              Justin3 said | August 29th 2013 @ 2:06pm | ! Report

              Probably, then again Pocock is far better defensively IMO.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 2:13pm
                Jerry said | August 29th 2013 @ 2:13pm | ! Report

                I’d agree with that. His tackling % is outstanding and his poaching is better. McCaw probably shades him in terms of anticipating the play but not by much.

        • Roar Rookie

          August 29th 2013 @ 8:13pm
          Phantom said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:13pm | ! Report

          McCaw is truly a giant of the game. The ABs will not be the same without him and no wonder the are trying to prolong his time with them.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 10:55pm
          Combesy said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:55pm | ! Report

          Sorry Anthony your wrong their. Take your sky blue jersey off because the stats show pocock is better and also pocock is a former inside centre. Hooper has improved out of sight but still not in the same league as pocock yet

      • August 29th 2013 @ 10:17am
        jameswm said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:17am | ! Report

        It’s funny, because I thought Hooper was magnificent in those two games, really stepping up and offering more.

      • August 29th 2013 @ 10:41am
        Justin3 said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:41am | ! Report

        Hooper would want to have greater impact because he gets plenty of breathers during the game 😉

        • August 29th 2013 @ 11:24am
          neilo said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:24am | ! Report

          By breathers you mean missing in action

          • August 29th 2013 @ 12:28pm
            Justin3 said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:28pm | ! Report

            bingo, good player but his involvements are alarming IMO.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 12:49pm
              jutsie said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:49pm | ! Report

              is this the case at both super at test level though? I thought he was one of the leading tacklers in super rugby and had good figures for runs/run meters for a forward too. Not sure bout breakdowns cant remember the stat for that.
              I think hooper (and his backrow pals) are getting the blame a bit for following links flawed game plan. It seemed to me like they were making a conscious effort not to commit too many numbers in tight/to the breakdowns.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 12:58pm
                jutsie said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:58pm | ! Report

                i just double checked he was 8th overall (2nd in aus) for tackles made (according to rugby heaven). He is a fair way behind gill and smith for pilfers (5 for the season compared to gill on 11 and smith on 10) but as a few others have said he is a very different 7 and this can be seen by him being 5th overall for linebreaks and the only forward in the top 10 (2nd highest aussie too).
                I think who you pick out of gill and hooper really depends on what backrow balance (as ben s alluded to above) it seems to me like hooper is doing the job of what we traditionally expect from an 8/6 and fardy/mowen are doing grafting in tight work.
                I dont think the issue is hooper i think its mowen at 8. he is a good 6 but a substandard 8, he just does not offer enough attacking threat.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 7:19pm
              Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:19pm | ! Report

              Yeah alarming.
              Alarming that people are pretending that Hooper hasnt been one of Aus best players over the last year. And when I say 1 of there best over the last year I mean THE best of those still in gold.
              Hooper is an outstanding young 7 and is already one of the best 7s in the world. I will be extremely surprised if he doesnt surpase Pocock as first choice 7 by the time he is Pococks age in 4 years time (25).
              Imo Hooper is a better support player, a better runner of the ball, hes quicker, just as intelligent and hes 4 years younger than Pocock.
              People must remember that the tactics make a difference and that stats obviously dont show the work that Hooper does. Hooper isnt lazy and everyone knows hes giving 100% for 80 mins.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 7:43pm
                Kuruki said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:43pm | ! Report

                It’s hard for the stats to show you something that isn’t happening. The stats don’t lie. Hooper is effective at what he does, perhaps because he is putting more effort into those involvements because of the large periods where he is having a breather.

              • Roar Rookie

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:47pm
                Phantom said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:47pm | ! Report

                I think the exact opposite is more likely

              • August 29th 2013 @ 10:29pm
                Justin3 said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:29pm | ! Report

                And does a third of the work…

      • Roar Guru

        August 29th 2013 @ 12:56pm
        Wal said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:56pm | ! Report

        Whilst you make a very good point Mania effectiveness is key in a player’s impact on a game. I think Scott’s analysis does highlight one very important question if the entire team have a lower work rate than each of their opposites then no amount of effectiveness is going to make up for it.
        I am a huge Hooper fan, but if he is hitting the Ruck / Tackle half as much as his opposite then someone else in the team is going to have to make up for it.
        The other thing, on reflection maybe these numbers should be weighted to the teams time in Attack or Defence. i.e. when the entire AB team make 2 times as many tackles as the WB’s then it would be very difficult for Hooper to match Ritchies stats.
        So in the last match RM made 14 of 120 AB Tackles @ 11.6% compare to Hoopers 7 of 73 @ 9.6%
        Possession RM 8 of 226 team possessions @ 3.5% Hooper 8 of 277 @ 2.8%
        Richies as expected is still involved a lot more but not as stark as perhaps first impressions

      • August 29th 2013 @ 3:07pm
        maxt said | August 29th 2013 @ 3:07pm | ! Report

        I will take accurate stats presented in a logical manner, over emotive opinions any day. I don’t there is an anti Hooper agenda, just an accurate observation that he does not have the involvement that some claim for him.
        No one is saying he is a poor player.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 4:53pm
          Mike said | August 29th 2013 @ 4:53pm | ! Report

          “No one is saying he is a poor player.”

          Immediately followed by zero gain’s post that Hooper is a poor player … 😉

          • August 29th 2013 @ 5:44pm
            Zero Gain said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:44pm | ! Report

            No, I didn’t say he is a poor player. Clearly he is an excellent player. I said he is overrated and a poor contributor, as the stats clearly show, and compared to Gill who could replace him in the run on side.

            • August 30th 2013 @ 10:05am
              Mike said | August 30th 2013 @ 10:05am | ! Report

              Okay, but given that we are talking about Hooper playing rugby, not e.g. Hooper blogging or Hooper going on Letterman, what is the practical difference between being a poor player and being a poor contributor?

              I’m not being picky, I’ve expect I’ve just misunderstood your point.

              • August 30th 2013 @ 11:40am
                Zero Gain said | August 30th 2013 @ 11:40am | ! Report

                I mean the story the stats tell from the last 2 tests. Not enough involvement hence not enough of a contribution. As his legion of fans know, the guy has heart, guts, is a cool dude, looks like he has been hit about the head with a baseball bat but still looks sort of good looking, has a cheeky grin, isn’t up himself, etc, etc. But in my opinion he is overrated as a test player and Gill would be a better option for the run on side. Hooper is ideal as an impact player in the last 30 minutes where the game is more open.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 5:08pm
          jutsie said | August 29th 2013 @ 5:08pm | ! Report

          he didnt have the involvement in the last 2 tests but lets see his stats for the whole super season.

      • August 29th 2013 @ 4:30pm
        Zero Gain said | August 29th 2013 @ 4:30pm | ! Report

        Those stats prove what I and several others have been saying for ages: Hooper is grossly overrated, is a poor contributor and should be dropped for Gill. He has a huge fanboy base who love to defend him. Facts are facts, he is an underperformer who makes the occasional flashy run to excite his legion of fans. His progression also neatly matches the Wallaby’s regression.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 7:51pm
          Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:51pm | ! Report

          ZG if you think Hooper is a poor player then you better tell the last 2 Wallabies coaches, the people who voted him super 15 poty, the people who gave him player of the JWC and the Sydney Morning Herald who gave Hooper 8.5/10, the highest score for a Wallaby for his game on sat.
          It seems they dont see what QLD Gill supporters see.

          • August 30th 2013 @ 12:07pm
            Zero Gain said | August 30th 2013 @ 12:07pm | ! Report

            True and he is a good player, not a poor player as those achievements show. But his involvement is poor and in my opinion he is very overrated as a test player. We need to match or better our opposition and he just can’t do that. There is a band wagon of support for Hooper that just keeps on rolling, but I do not believe it is justified by his on field contributions in the wallabies.

    • August 29th 2013 @ 6:00am
      Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:00am | ! Report

      Hooper is quite simply a different sort of player to Pocock. Pocock hasn’t been a huge thorn in the side of NZ in recent key games, so I don’t see the issue personally. I just don’t think it’s a fair comparison – different players, different positives. Once you start trying to break down entire games into statistics then you lose little intangibles that are obvious from viewing the game. Personally I think this is a case of oversimplification. What are the stats from the entire back rows, not just 7 v 7?

      • Roar Guru

        August 29th 2013 @ 6:25am
        B-Rock said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:25am | ! Report

        Ben.S – agree stats need to be taken in context, but the analysis Scott has published above is reasonably robust. The main issue I have with the final chart is the extremely small sample size. we need to look at more than 4 data points to form a conclusion.

        While they don’t tell you all you need to know, statistical analysis helps test and challenge opinions. I for one was shocked at the work rate differentials. A gap this wide cannot be put down to differences in styles – your No. 7 needs to be a workhorse, you want him in as many tackle/ruck contests as possible.

        If the trends in this chart are reflective of SR and tests more broadly, it is damning for Hoops and reinforces my view that Poey is the standout 7 in Australia.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 6:38am
          Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:38am | ! Report

          If Hooper is doing less than Pocock (in certain areas), then is Fardy doing more than Elsom was, or Mowen more than Palu? Back rows are about balance. It rarely comes down to a 7 v 7 contest.

          I still think it’s about styles of play. Does anybody seriously think Pocock tests defences more than Hooper? Would Genia have scored that try off the lineout if Pocock was 7? I doubt it personally. And again, what difference did Pocock make against NZ in that SF despite his stats? I just think it’s not apples v apples as it’s being presented.

          It’s other little things too – Moore has predominantly been carrying down the middle, just off the ruck, whereas Slipper has had a few passes out on the wing. Granted he’s been further behind the gainline than Moore in these instances, but equally he has fewer defenders and more space to run into. I think Slipper has been good, but numbers v numbers isn’t the sole basis of rugby.

          • Roar Guru

            August 29th 2013 @ 1:52pm
            B-Rock said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:52pm | ! Report

            Backrow balance is key, no doubt about that, although I didn’t see Mowen and Fardy out working Hoops and their predecessors dramatically. This is definitely a factor at the margin but its unlikely to account for much of the differential.

            I am a hooper fan, and I think he adds a lot around the park. But he is not a 13, he is a 7. Its the 7s job to dominate the breakdown and tackle contest. Its like a THP who can’t scrummage but is a good ball carrier. Its just not that important for their role.

            So while I like hoops, I would never select him over Pocock. He’s just on another level. And to say that he had no impact on NZ in the RWC SF is strange. He clearly did, up against a fired up AB back row with the best player of his generation in NZ in the biggest game of their lives? You seriously believe Hooper would have had any impact in a game of that intensity? Hoops couldn’t even deal with Warbs and the Lions back row.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 6:07pm
              Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:07pm | ! Report

              Again, I’m repeating myself: it depends on what type of 7 you want. Pocock is essentially the most over the ball 7 in the world. No other side in world rugby plays such a limited player.

              Secondly, Pocock has had no significant influence over past Australia v NZ results, so calls for his inclusion are bizarre on that basis. I didn’t see him do sh*t against NZ.

              And as for the the Lions back row comment – Pocock has had zero impact on England in recent seasons, despite England never fielding a specialist 7 so that argument of yours is redundant. The breakdown is a pack effort and Pocock would have likely been smashed all over the place too.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 6:53am
          Tintalafan said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:53am | ! Report

          +1 B-Rock

          I read somewhere that ‘almost all errors in thinking are errors in perception” and what Scott’s analysis shows with Hooper is that he doesn’t execute his basic job as a number 7 very well. Dont get me wrong, I admire Hoopers passion, drive and energy, and he has moments of individual brilliance, but we’re talking fundamentals – if players don’t consistently deliver on their fundamental role in the team, you will struggle to win.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 7:03am
            Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:03am | ! Report

            That depends on what you believe the role of a 7 is. Pocock has never bothered England much when Lewis Moody played 7, and Moody was essentially a 6.5, as is Dusatoir, Robshaw, Brown, Warburton, Louw and O’Brien. And for the 3rd time – what difference did Pocock make against NZ in the semi-final? How many wins has he delivered against NZ? Forward play is an 8 man issue, and is rarely decided by the 7 simply because the referee has such an influence on the outcome. I think there’s bigger issues that the Australian pack has at this juncture than the involvement of Hooper.

            • Roar Guru

              August 29th 2013 @ 7:35am
              Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:35am | ! Report

              You make good points about balance particularly in the backrow. Australia’s backrow has been sluggish over the past 2 Tests and is a key weakness for Australia. Would’ve Gill provided more balance? Probably, and I think he’s a better fit against NZ while Hooper would be more suited to the Boks.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 8:02am
                Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:02am | ! Report

                You’ve basically had 2 locks playing 6 in both games. Granted that’s down to injuries, however.

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:14am
                Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:14am | ! Report

                As in the locks were doing above average work?

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:23am
                Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:23am | ! Report

                Sorry I misread you.

                MMM isn’t a test lock and neither is Fardy. MMM was apart of those scrums circa 05-07 that Sheridan used to pull apart. Fardy was an improvement and played well , but not great, for a starting Debut. He isn’t the answer either long term though. Mowen is woeful at 8, but I’m uneasy about the other options.

                Schatz will be a long term option in a couple of years. He has an identical physic to Read however he isn’t ready just yet. I’d rather he not be rushed and brought on after the next RWC.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 8:40am
                Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:40am | ! Report

                As in MMM and Fardy are more Super locks than Super 6s IMO, which means they’re not close to Test 6s or Test locks. I actually thought Fardy was OK, but agree that he isn’t the long-term answer. Mowen looked about as comfortable as Tom Wood did at 8 during the 6N. Granted he is only there for the interm, though.

                I was all for Quirk and Schatz being elevated to the Wallabies a few months ago, but looking at the physicality that Lydiate and O’Brien brought during the Lions tour I don’t think they’re physically ready yet. There’s some monstrous back rowers out there ATM.

                I stood next to Read after the Crusaders – Sharks match at Twickenham and was actualyl surprised by how meaty he is. He’s not musclebound, but he’s certainly not lithe either. Built like an 80s tighthead lock.

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:52am
                Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:52am | ! Report

                Quirk isn’t ready either like you say. Both those guys are 22 IIRC so time is on their side. I only became convinced of Quirk this year, however he faded towards the back end of the season.

                Reads ability is more down to technic than anything IMO. Schatz is the same however he has a bit to do with his hands. He fumbles a bit at the bass of the scrum, but like Quirk he’s improved immensely in the last 12 months.

            • Roar Guru

              August 29th 2013 @ 8:48am
              Red Kev said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:48am | ! Report

              The role of a no.7 is to live on the ball. That is it. Very simple. It is why many people rate Gill higher than Hooper and Pocock still ahead of both regardless of injury.
              I said more than a year ago that the biggest problem with Hooper was that he played a no.8’s game but doesn’t have the size to be an eightman.

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 8:53am
                Jiggles said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:53am | ! Report

                I agree with that summation which is why I favour Gill.

              • Roar Guru

                August 29th 2013 @ 10:05am
                Kane said | August 29th 2013 @ 10:05am | ! Report

                Couldn’t agree more, my job as a 7 is to be where the ball is hit every defensive ruck I make it first too and I should be first at 75% of them. On attack I should be first to every second ruck.

              • August 29th 2013 @ 6:08pm
                Ben.S said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:08pm | ! Report

                If that was the role of the 7 then which sides in Test rugby select 7s who live over the ball?

              • August 29th 2013 @ 9:47pm
                Tane Mahuta said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:47pm | ! Report

                25 years ago if you had said the best wingers in the world would be 110kg and 6’4 they would have laughed at you but guys like Lomu and North are just that.
                I dont see why we must limit what players can be in a position.
                Bismark isnt the typical Hooker, Lomu wasnt the typical winger, Phillips isnt the typical halfback and SBW isnt the typical 12 but all have been considered the best in the world in their positions. O’Brien and Hooper may not be the typical 7 but you do realise that thats a positive for these guys.

              • August 30th 2013 @ 1:45am
                Ben.S said | August 30th 2013 @ 1:45am | ! Report

                Phillips isn’t even considered the best 9 in Wales or France let alone Europe let alone the world.

          • August 29th 2013 @ 7:23am
            mania said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:23am | ! Report

            Tintalafan – stats aside and ignoring scott analysis, what fundamentals did u see hooper not do?
            i agree with BenS here. the stats arent showing the big picture here, or the lack of stats is missing the little things.
            hooper had an outstanding 2 bled games. hooper contributed positively, ie his contibutions to the team effort far outweighed any errors he made. hooper cant be faulted for his game. hooper is not why the WBs lost.
            let hooper be. he’s evolved his game. any player that can reinvent his game mid season is dangerous as this shows a huge ability to adapt and learn.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 7:55am
              Johnno said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:55am | ! Report

              mani the thing about any stats are they can be misleading. Often the wallabies end up having better stats than the AB’S, and end up being thrashed. Often coz the AB’S, go into cruse control and take there foot of the accelerator when the game is won. Stats should be done at crucial times of the match, and the ab’s in games vs the wallabies always win those easily.
              Also possession on it’s own is wasted stat, many soccer teams get all the possession and still lose, coz they didn’t use it well, but the team who got less used it well and could actually score goals. Same in rugby aussies get a lot of possession often, but just don’t get any flow in there possession, totally empty and rudderless.

            • August 29th 2013 @ 8:37am
              Kane said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:37am | ! Report

              stats aside and ignoring scott analysis, what fundamentals did u see hooper not do?

              Well apart from hitting the majority of his teams rucks first and either making the tackle or being one of the first at the defensive rucks nothing…

      • August 29th 2013 @ 9:34am
        jutsie said | August 29th 2013 @ 9:34am | ! Report

        Good point ben

      • August 29th 2013 @ 11:25am
        neilo said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:25am | ! Report

        As an avid AB supporter I can tell you that I fear Pocock way more than Hooper.

        • Roar Rookie

          August 29th 2013 @ 8:45pm
          Phantom said | August 29th 2013 @ 8:45pm | ! Report

          Me too

          • August 29th 2013 @ 11:15pm
            Combesy said | August 29th 2013 @ 11:15pm | ! Report

            Pocock is an unmovable object he execute the little 1% of the game well. Hooper unfortunately while he is a good play doesn’t match pocock. Hooper is too slow to play 13 and too small to play 8.. Good player but he will have to settle for impact player when poey comes back

    • Roar Guru

      August 29th 2013 @ 6:39am
      B-Rock said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:39am | ! Report

      Love your work Scott – best rugby analysis I’ve seen. Hopefully some of the old school journos take notice and lift their game.

      Those possession stats are worrying from a refereeing perspective. It goes against the fundamental tenets of the game – possession and territory should be coveted and typically lead to wins.

      Have you also got the corresponding territory stats for the games listed above? If they go the other way, it would indicate the most effective winning strategy currently is to play the Boks style of
      – kicking to the corners,
      – contesting the breakdown aggressively as we know the referee favours the defensive side over the course of a game
      – A preference for counter attack over building pressure through phases
      – kicking every penalty inside 55m

      While this isn’t a new style of game plan, it is not the most appealing to fans and sponsors

      • Roar Guru

        August 29th 2013 @ 1:11pm
        Wal said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:11pm | ! Report

        Hi B-Rock

        Not sure the possession game is all about the refs, Australia seem to have reverted back the Eddie Jones style of play where possession wins above creativity.
        The AB’s, Chiefs, and Crusaders over the last few years have created a game plan around creating pressure in both Defence and Attack. And it has very much become about picking the best opportunity to strike in both.
        In Defence these teams commit very few to the break down unless they see a chance to create pressure, not just a turn over but also pressure on the halves. The timing of this is a thing to behold sometimes. McCaw and Hore are the masters at it.
        In Attack the ball doesn’t go wide unless there is an opportunity otherwise it is turned back in a recycled, or put to a contestable kick to create pressure further up the field. Note contestable very few of the AB’s kicks over the last 2 weeks have been very deep. Often only just passing half way.
        This is very different to the style the Boks play with Territory the key decider in the use of possession not the opportunity to apply pressure. Of course with the Bok style pressure applies with field position and they await/force an error.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 1:17pm
          Mike said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:17pm | ! Report

          i agree Wal. However some Australian fans will demand that heads roll unless the ball is spread wide, at the earliest opportunity. They believe this is “running rugby”!

          • Roar Guru

            August 29th 2013 @ 1:44pm
            Wal said | August 29th 2013 @ 1:44pm | ! Report

            The Australian “Running” Game I remember was a 3rd very distinct style to this one, Where the ball was kept away from the opposition forwards and had great use of angles in attack. Guys like Mortlock and Little were incredible at varying their entry into the line to wrong foot defenders not just beat them.
            I wonder with forwards lining up in defence and not committing to rucks like in the past, if this style is no longer viable?

    • August 29th 2013 @ 6:56am
      soapit said | August 29th 2013 @ 6:56am | ! Report

      most interesting there for me is the comparison between the 2011 mcaw and pcocock.

      mccaw more defensive rucks and tackles with pcock more attacking rucks and carries.

      • August 29th 2013 @ 7:37am
        Kane said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:37am | ! Report

        I think the Wallabies had the upper hand on posession in that game which would explain those stats.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 12:11pm
          soapit said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:11pm | ! Report

          i thought it was over the whole 2011 not just one game

          but you’re right, possession stats will skew these results. it doesnt seem that they weight them for this .

      • August 29th 2013 @ 7:47am
        Jeff said | August 29th 2013 @ 7:47am | ! Report

        Just remember in the RWC McCaw was playing with a broken foot and has admitted he adjusted his playing style to cope with that.It would be interesting to see how the figures would vary if both McCaw and Pocock were fit.

        • August 29th 2013 @ 12:12pm
          soapit said | August 29th 2013 @ 12:12pm | ! Report

          would be interesting to see these done over someones career

    Explore:
    , ,