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 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.
Jacko
Guest
FTardy played one game so far, Mowen proved himself through the lions series
Brumby Jack
Guest
Genia needs to play more structured game so that the back row can work with him better,it's easy to blame the back row rather look at the symptom
Matt
Guest
Hi John fair comment but the responsibility of this is not his alone it is dependant on the stability and strength of the scrum, the number 8, the speed of the ball release from the scrum, the chanell of the ball through the scrum,the srumhalfs interaction and of course is depandant on which side the oppostion attack on, I also note the new scrummaging rules and the interpretation of these. Like any players they make mistakes including McCaw my view is simply from an overall prospective and highlights his incredible achievements
john badseed
Guest
don't know much about rugby apart from watching -ok half watching- the tests but shouldn't a forward be protecting genia at the scrum base and rucks as he seems to lose the ball there way too often.
Matt
Guest
Mr Allen anyone can use certain statistics to demonstrate performance or a point of view. For Instance using 2011 stats for comparison why not go back to when McCaw or Pocock played their 10th test we could easily use more recent Bledisloe stats like 2012 Bledisloe where Hooper made 27 tackles and McCaw 15 and I think Pocock made 7. The test before. There is no doubt McCaw & Pocock are world class but for those to say Hooper is not World Class then this would be from a more than limited point of view. The facts are in successive years 1) Australian Under 20's player of the Year, 2) Autsralian Rookie of the year and 3rd in the John Eales medal (only played 7 out of the 17 polling games) 3) 2013 Super Rugby player of the Year and currently 30 or more points ahead of next challenger for Australian Rugby Championship player of the Year and currently leading 2013 John Eales medal for 2013 and excluding injury may well take out the top prize. Now remember these are awarded by the by referees, players and officials the people who are in the game not the sideline who simply just have an opinion based on some Rugby knowledge they think they have. I am not playing so so I rely on the people who are and who are in the action to make the judgement and when you consider what Hooper has achieved in 2 short years at test level, I may be wrong but i dont think anyone one in Australian rugby has archived the same. Hooper is WORLD CLASS don't take my word for It but take the players, referees, match officials and ARU professional opinion. Mr Allen if you are going to use statistics you should use the ones that count which are above which include more than just simple statistics but include inspiration, commitment, effort, passion and leadership. Let me ask you did Pocock achieve the same in his first 2 years of test rugby, I can help you with the answer No! Give the kid a break and and be happy with a players player performance and a good second game,
Kuruki
Roar Guru
He picked the ball up off the ground and passed it. McCaw scored one.
Zero Gain
Guest
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.
Zero Gain
Guest
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.
Mike
Guest
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.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
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.
jeznez
Roar Guru
One more off the list then - still a number of decent options to try.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Phillips isn't even considered the best 9 in Wales or France let alone Europe let alone the world.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Ma'afu is in Northampton with the Saints, Jez.
LukeR
Guest
Thanks Scott. And thanks for the article: "When you have to blame the scrummy, it's too late!" This is exactly what I said above re: Genia. Perhaps you have a stat for it, but I happen to remember Pocock getting to a lot of attacking rucks first. I have these vivid memories of him leading the kind of clean out that I've rarely seen from the Wallabies in the last few matches. I think perhaps Palu was strong in this area against the Lions. This "not getting past the ball" charge against the Wallabies has been going around a while now, and yes, the evidence is there to see. But seeing as it's really not a secret to success, but quite an obvious ones, what are the kind of barriers being put up by the likes of the Lions and ABs to this in your opinion? But regards to tactics, this was my point above too. If Hooper isn't doing it, than it has to be someone, and obviously it's preferable if that someone has the speed of a backrower, because we see from the ABs stats that their backrowers are doing the job.
bennalong
Guest
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!
Combesy
Guest
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
Combesy
Guest
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
Chracol
Guest
he set up a long range try????
Justin3
Guest
And does a third of the work...
Tane Mahuta
Guest
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.