I wrote an article last week on five KPIs that needed to be met for a Wallaby victory.
They concerned technical aspects of the game that betrayed preparation, focus, and repetition, and had nothing to do with raw talent or X Factor.
They had a lot to do with selections, tactics and coaching.
My premise was that Test matches typically aren’t won by teams that run the ball the most, and that running the ball does not have to equate to attacking rugby.
Illustrating this point once again, the All Blacks scored six tries on Saturday night, but kicked 29 times, to Australia’s 20.
However, 13 of the Kiwi kicks were contestable (mostly mid-field bombs), while the majority of ours were intended to be touch finders/distance gainers.
We simply did not use attacking kicks (exception was Toomua’s cross field attempt to Folau which was inaccurate and not contested), however touch finders were still a positive tactic because our lineout was working so well.
Ewen chose to employ a predominantly running/passing game, and starve the All Blacks of possession.
To this end, the Wallabies ran 121 times to NZ’s 82; made 180 passes to 76; and ran for 512m to the All Black’s 362m. We also had 60% of the possession, and 56% of the territory.
This is a team that had an attacking mindset, and beating 20 defenders (ABs beat 15 defenders) while scoring 29 points against the All Blacks probably backs that up.
In Super Rugby this year, the teams who ran/passed the most were middle to bottom rung performers (think Highlanders and Waratahs), while the top teams were more weighted to kicking (Bulls, Brumbies, Crusaders).
The Crusaders started the season as a passing team, and had poor results. They switched tactics to become a kicking team and turned their season around. No one would say they are not an attacking team, though.
Ewan’s Reds were a passing team who used some kicking, and scored far fewer tries than in previous years with this mix. That is largely what we saw from the Wallabies on the weekend, while the All Blacks game plan looked a lot like the Crusaders shape.
Anyway, back to Saturday’s game. In defence, we let in six tries.
Surprisingly, we only missed 15 tackles to NZs 20, and had a tackle completion rate of 84% to their 86%. We forced them to make 121 tackles to our 78. This does not do justice to the final score.
So, how did we lose? Simply, we were destroyed in the details.
Repeating the assertion from last week, winning sides who play attacking rugby first work hard at the details of the game to create the conditions to attack, and then recognise when the opportunities to attack present themselves and bravely take them.
That’s when individual talent and flair become the icing on the cake.
This, in a nutshell, is what the All Blacks did.
With that in mind, here is how the Wallabies measured up to the KPIs that were set for them.
1. Catch 100% of our kick-off receptions, and aim to win 50% of our kick-off chases
This was not met. It did not cost us any points, or lead to any points for us.
We won 70% of receptions, and 33% of chases. There were a whopping 19 kick-offs/22m drop outs in that game, so this is a huge source of primary possession.
While we did not meet this KPI, this was a good result as compared to our recent past, and indicates that we broke even with the All Blacks on this one. Tentative thumbs up to the coaching staff.
2. We must win 100% of our line out throws, and we must have 50% of those throws being cleanly won from the back of the lineout (obviously dependent on what part of the field the lineout is set)
This was met and netted us 17 of our points.
We won 100% of our throws, and 56% of those were from the back. We kicked one penalty goal as a direct result of the possession gained.
In addition, we won/badly disrupted 42% of All Black ball, and scored two tries as a result.
This was just about our only weapon, as you would hope it would be when you choose four jumpers in your pack.
The ball from the back of the lineout was our most reliable source of front ball, and it got us over the advantage line on each occasion.
Only poor execution in possession stopped us scoring more tries as a result of lineout wins at 14:41 and 67:31. Overall, another win for the coaches.
3. We must cleanly catch every kick in general play put up by the All Blacks
This was not met and cost us three points.
We caught or regained possession on 85% of kicks. Failure to catch all kicks ultimately only resulted in one successful penalty goal to NZ. After the shockers we produced in this aspect of play over the last few years, this was a failed KPI but a massive step forward.
4. Have an effective strategy for exiting our defensive 22m that the players all understand and can execute consistently
This was not met and cost us 28 points.
We managed to successfully exit our 22m zone 50% of the time that we were in possession there, and conceded four tries as direct results of failing to clear the 22m. Tries conceded were as follows:
28:14 Cruden charges down clearing kick from Lealiifano
30:34 Mogg’s kick doesn’t find touch, ABs get possession 40m out, and eight phases later McCaw scores in corner.
55:50 our scrum feed, ball not hooked and rolls through tunnel, picked up by New Zealand #6, two phases later Ben Smith scores in corner.
71.09 we attempt to pass it wide in our 22m, Kuridrani tackled, can’t control his ball presentation, Ben Smith swoops on the rolling ball and races 22m to score in corner.
5. Kick our penalties and conversions at better than 80% success rate
This was met. We kicked at 88%, CL kicked 100%, for 19 points. What a pleasure to have a reliable goal kicker again.
To beat the All Blacks, though, near enough is not good enough.
On the positive side, we controlled overall possession and territory, missed a similar proportion of tackles, nailed the lineouts, kicked our goals, broke even in the scrum, improved our kick offs and mainly defused the aerial threats.
Australia’s Achilles heal was our inefficiency in getting out of the danger zone, and poor support play/option taking, which squandered line breaks that should have led to more points.
We did not scramble well in defence, and this largely reflects that many of the tries were from turnover ball where we were still in attacking shapes and were slow to respond.
The overall impression I have after analysing the game is as follows:
1. The poor support play and scrambling defence are symptoms of the Wallabies not knowing or trusting one another, or the systems, yet. I hope this improves with time.
2. The poor exits from our 22m are a coaching/tactics/selection issue, and can be addressed by Ewen and co.
3. The All Blacks will not stand by and accept being trounced in the line outs again. They will respond.
4. The scrum could re-emerge as a decisive factor, and I fear not in our favour.
5. The coaches have started to get some of the detail right, but have they chosen the right tactics? Should we employ more tactical kicking? Or should we narrow the attacking channels and focus on offloads and support in depth rather than swinging it from side to side?
Both sides will improve, but I am hoping that the Wallabies make the bigger strides this week.
They will make changes, but despite the wonderful crisp passing and more threatening attacking shape we saw when Cooper came on, I hope they stick with Toomua and allow his attack to develop.
He just seems worth pursuing to me.
I also think Fardy needs to be in there from the kickoff to add grunt to the breakdown battle.
Mike
Guest
Nabley, if you want to poke holes in the statistics then I won't argue with you. They are only useful up to a point. But I would have thought the point about the work differential between the Aussie and kiwi backrows was apparent anyway from general observation. In a way, the statistics are encouraging because they show that its not necessarily a differential in talent or ability. If our backrowers are able to lift their work rate as a whole to the level of Read, Luatau and McCaw, they may well find that their natural talents flourish as well. Its worth a thought. As you point out, the backrowers' work rates may well reflect what they were tasked to do. But I think the discussion has been more along the lines of whether this was a good idea in the first place. The stats appear to indicate that the ABs expect their entire back five to work hard at the breakdown.
RebelRanger
Guest
Great article. Best post game analysis I've read.
Nabley
Guest
Mike and Liam, Yes the Wallabies Back Row do not compare with the ABs Back Row, but what was each being asked to do? Positioning on the field during phase play provides a clue. The Wallabies Second Row did well at the breakdown, perhaps that was what they were tasked with. There was a time when second rowers could barely bend over to tie their laces let alone turnover ball. Not so today. Multi tasking and using skills to best effect is now what our game is about.
Ra
Guest
Totally agree moaman; most roarers seem to enjoy indulging in pathetic rubbish
Mike
Guest
Nabley, its worth looking at Scott Allen's article on that video. I don't think he is all that critical of Hooper. He acknowledges the limitation of the statistics and I think he would agree with your point that the No 7 doesn't have to be there first every time. He did highlight the fact that the statistics for our three backrowers combined were well below those of the three AB backrowers combined.
AndyS
Guest
Fair play, and would agree just getting it into touch outside the 22 is well generous. I'd missed that it included the try from the scrum - unfortunate and should have been pulled up by the ref, but just one of those things that happen. A failing in that Aus didn't nail the feed, but not something that should have cost a try without an actual tight-head.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Nabley, fair point. However, breakdown has to be the bread and butter for backrowers, and 7s in particular. While the 7 doesnt have to be the first one there every time (impossible anyway), one of your backrow should be there first in the majority of cases. The tackle contest requires both speed and accuracy to remove a threat/become a threat (depending on attack or defence), and sheer force to shift the pile/remove bodies. Backrowers are typically quicker, and so are expected to be on the scene early when the threat is still able to be neutralised or posed. They are usually more agile than their tight 5 team mates and so can control their collisions with more precision to make sure that they don't miss the threat, and they are usually competing against fewer opposition. Tight 5 are usually there a tad slower and make an impact by adding their weight to support or disrupt a tackle contest that is already well developed, something a smaller or lighter man cannot do as well. If your #7 is too selective in his ruck involvements, your team is missing a vital ingredient to secure your own ball and disrupt your oppositions attack. In our case, it seems that our entire backrow was too selective! This is the point I believe Scott was making, and there is no doubt it slowed our attack ball, allowed turnovers, and gave the ABs an armchair ride in possession. Was it a tactic? Maybe, but if so it should be immediately discarded.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Yes Andy, it was pretty broad, I agree, but I had to try to sum up a big concept snappily for the sake of the article. Luckily most people knew what I was getting at and just rolled with it! FYI - The actual measure I used to measure the KPI of an effective 22 Exit was that it resulted in either a lineout outside the 22m (pretty generous), or an opposition possession on the other side of halfway.
AndyS
Guest
A pretty good article, but would probably question whether "Have an effective strategy for exiting our defensive 22m" is actually a quantifiable KPI. The nominal failures were not the result of a particular strategy, nor is a single strategy even possible. The KPI is probably skills accuracy/execution within the 22, regardless of what those skills actually entailed. It was those inaccuracies that cost us the points, not a failure in some plan.
Nabley
Guest
I see a few, including Scott Alan's video have been critical of Hooper and the rest of the back row. In fairness, I think you have to interprete what is going on the field through what they have been told to do. There is no unique law that states no 7s need to be there first to the breakdown all the time. In McCaw's book he goes out of his way to describe the difference between Waugh and Smith. Waugh was always there doing the same thing moment to moment. McCaw saw Waugh as totally predictable and was very easy o counter as a result. Whereas Smith was much more selective where he committed himself. McCaw said Smith would sit back and only do those breakdowns that were able to produce results. That is a big difference in style of play and result. It also means that Stats unless use carefully can lie, or at least lead you astray. Few would question Hooper's strength as a ball runner and perhaps he holds himself in part for that opportunistic role leaving the breakdown work to others who to all intents are just as good at doing it. Besides not every breakdown is going to or is even suitable to produce turnover.
Nabley
Guest
sheek
Roar Guru
SamSport, Good stuff! I was thinking Vic Cavagnah, but I think he was the architect of the "flat-line" attack so beloved by the Ella brothers. Although the Scottish Borders are claiming first dibs on that one, I believe! I guess the moral here is that there isn't much new under the sun. If you're an ambitious coach & you're willing to trawl through the past history of the game, you'll find something useful for sure that's been long-forgotten.
Expat matt
Guest
WB got try and kick for touch when penalty is given in opposition 1/2 rather than taking 3 with penalty shot And yes some will say you take points on offer but IMHO against the ab's defence you have to score tries to win . I was amazed on Sat that at least 3 of 5 opportunities to get a line out throw we're turned down for 3 point shots. Reckon that is the way and yes you will have to breach the defence but with commitment discipline and patience it can be done
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Just read Cullys article. Wow, that's spot on.
Cinematic
Guest
Very interesting read. Thanks. There's an intangible in rugger sometimes referenced as the 'physical battle'. The Wallabies stacked up plenty of good stats but lacked the physical edge of the AB's. That to me was the difference. If the Wallabies can bring that edge to their structure they'll be a handful.
SamSport
Guest
Charlie Saxon preached the three P's I believe. I just think a low scoring game will keep the Wallabies in it and help with the self-belief. The longer they're in it, the more confident they'll get. I don't buy into the argument that the Australians lack ball skills. Their skill level is high, it's the physical stuff they struggle with. I just think it's worth a crack - playing the game at a million miles an hour rarely works against the All Blacks.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Sam, my guess is that we were going to play a territory based game based on Mogg and Toomua pumping the touch lines and our lineout disrupting/pinching their ball, then playing a possession game in their half to force ruck infringements and kickable penalties. Our tries and line breaks were going to come from clean, back of the lineout ball delivered flat to the backs. We did see elements of the above, but the execution of our 22m exits and our thrashing at the breakdown meant that we gave too much turnover ball in good attacking positions. We did score 29 points, though, so there was certainly some merit in the tactics themselves.
sheek
Roar Guru
SamSport, Slow the game down? Surely you jest! The ABs ability to transfer the ball quickly is phenomenal, the product of superior basic skills. The Wallas should work on their basic skills. Get up to speed. There is an old saying beloved by the great Randwick sides of the past (& they borrowed it from the deep south of NZ before that) of the 3 x Ps: Secure POSSESSION quickly; get into POSITION quickly & do everything at PACE. In war the maxim for infantry soldiers is "movement & fire." In rugby that could be slightly adjusted to "move & score!"
sheek
Roar Guru
Ah silly me - Liam! I didn't know your surname until now. Yes, it was great last Saturday to catch up fellow Roarers. Makes life so much easier when you can put a face to a name & say they're good people. Yes, you're right, the difference is a lack of a national comp, which encourages greater competition between players for national selection. More competition forces you to lift your skills, or drop off. Interestingly, I just had a peep over at G&GR & Bob Dwyer made this very telling observation, which supports what you say above: "All errors in play are caused by faulty technique under pressure. The All Blacks had exemplary technique under pressure in both attack and defence." I would suggest the ABs are better under pressure because of the intense competition they are subjected to all the way through their rugby evolution. A this from Paul Cully in the SMH the other day: "But if it (an ARC/APC) is not done to help the next generation of Australian players and coaches, the same grim conversations that followed the Wallabies' loss on Saturday night will be heard again in a decade's time, and the only the players' names will be different." Yep, which is pretty well what's been happening since before The Roar kicked off in 2007. Just in that time, we've seen three CEOs of the ARU, three coaches & three captains of the Wallabies. And we wait & wait for results to change while basically still doing the same things. Is this the definition of madness, stupidity, or both?
SamSport
Guest
Ella isn't in the backline this weekend though! I think the points made by Liam are all good, but I almost wonder if Australia should consider slowing the game down. The Wallabies love playing a quick game, but the All Blacks love it more! A forward slog with kicks for touch may be worth a try - obviously the forwards would have to commit to playing such a game plan, but why not? If they don't believe they can take the ABs on up front, then maybe they should find some players that do?