From Bledisloe 1 to Bledisloe 2, New Zealand went from scoring 6 tries, to scoring 2. Australia went from scoring 2 tries, to scoring 1.
The game was appreciably tighter. Why did it happen, and is it really progress?
Holding the ball and making your tackles
Instinctively, you would expect that both sides, and particularly Australia, must have tackled better in Bledisloe 2. However, Australia’s tackle effectiveness remained pretty much the same across both games – 84% in Sydney, and 85% in Wellington. NZ’s tackle effectiveness only improved marginally, from 86% to 89%.
As far as total possession goes, NZ actually had more of the ball than in game one (44%, up from 40%), so overall possession was not a factor in the drop in tries either.
Where you gain possession matters
Statistically, very few tries are scored from outside the attacking 40m zone. So, having possession in good field position tips the odds of scoring tries dramatically in your favour. Gaining primary possession in good field position further increases your chances.
Primary possession comes from:
Kick-offs/22 drops
Kicks in play
Scrum
Lineout
Penalties
Turnovers (drop balls, intercepts, ruck steals, strips)
Primary Possession Opportunities
The All Blacks Scrum and Lineout performance lifted appreciably from game 1 to game 2. No doubt, this really hurt Australia’s attack, as they particularly looked to the lineout as a potential try scoring platform. However, despite the advantage, the All Blacks could not convert their own dominance into a try scoring platform for themselves.
As has been discussed elsewhere, Australia’s performance at the breakdown improved markedly, with turnovers conceded reducing from 17 in Sydney, to 9 in Wellington. NZ remained steady, conceding 8 and 9 turnovers in the first 2 games respectively. This improvement was a major factor in keeping the All Blacks attack in check, and I would call it a draw, as is reflected in the identical number of turnovers.
All of which brings us to the kicking game. This is the area that changed the dynamic of the game from Bledisloe 1 to Bledisloe 2. Let’s look at how it played out.
Australia conceded 16 penalties to NZs 9. NZ converted this advantage into 15 points from kicks at goal, and 6 kicks for touch that averaged a 23m territory gain and the throw in each time. Australia converted their penalties into 9 points, 4 kicks for touch that averaged 19.5m in length and gave a lineout throw in, and 1 kick that failed to find touch. Clear advantage to NZ, and statistically relevant to the final score.
As far as restarts are concerned, Australia improved significantly again in game 2, on what was a solid performance in Sydney. The Wallabies comfortably secured 100% of kick off receptions, most with no pressure. On the other side of the ball, they regained 3 of their 9 kicks, and greatly pressured the All Blacks on a further 3. Again, improvement in this facet of play reduced attack opportunities for the All Blacks.
Clearing kicks and exiting the 22m was another area where Australia improved greatly in game 2. The All Blacks were efficient, as usual, successfully exiting the 22m zone (through either finding touch outside the 22m or forcing a kick reception from the opposition on the other side of half way) on 10 from 10 occasions.
The Wallabies achieved this 6 times out of 8, one of which was a charge down (Genia), and the other a kick fielded by the ABs on the attacking 40m line. Slight advantage to NZ, but it certainly dried up the opportunities they feasted on in Sydney, where the Wallabies could only manage 50% of exits successfully, 4 of which led to AB tries.
The All Blacks attempted 19 clearing kicks. 58% found touch, for an average gain of 27m. They kicked 2 out on the full (outside 22m). The remaining 32% of clearing kicks that did not find touch, gained an average of 46m.
The Wallabies tried 16 clearing kicks. 19% found touch, averaging 38m gained. One was kicked out on the full, and one was charged down (mentioned above). The other 69% were not out, and gained an average of 57m.
So the Wallabies long kicking game was good, and actually gained more distance per kick. However, in the details like charge downs and finding touch, the All Blacks prevailed. Slight advantage to ABs, but a solid performance from WBs, and their proficiency here further limited the NZ try scoring opportunities.
Finally, the biggest discrepancy occurred in attacking kicks/high kicks. Last week, Australia did not use them at all, attempting to run the ball everywhere outside of their 22m while the All Blacks high-kicked all but 1 piece of possession between the 22 and half way. This week, NZ continued that strategy, and Australia went some way down that track as well, as Ewen had intimated during the week.
NZ put up 17 attacking kicks. They regained 24%, or 4, of those kicks. They converted this primary possession into 2 tries in the 26th and 39th minutes. The first try came 1 phase after the regather, while the second went through 5 phases before scoring. Regaining an attacking kick usually gives you primary possession around midfield, against a disorganised defence who are trying to transition quickly and are more likely to make bad decisions.
The All Blacks always accelerate their pace in this scenario to keep the defence disoriented as long as possible, not worrying about being “set” in attack but rather keeping things moving with speed and aggression, even if it is only one-out running.
Australia used this tactic on 9 occasions. Twice, they had kicks charged down, twice they found touch deep in AB territory, and twice they regathered possession. Of the 3 occasions that the opposition caught the ball, only once did the WBs allow them an unpressured catch. So, a mixed performance, but more good than bad in that it delivered territory and took away further opportunities for NZ to use their “pressure” game at our end. Interestingly, all of these kicks occurred in the first half. What was the message at half-time?
So, in the attacking/high-kick stakes, a clear advantage to NZ that ultimately yielded 2 tries to nil. Nevertheless, by using this tactic more, Australia played a little less football in their half and made the ABs work harder for their point scoring opportunities than in Sydney.
How is the Ewen McKenzie Project progressing?
McKenzie’s game plan this week emphasised more kicking, thereby playing with less possession, but denying the opposition cheap turnover ball in vulnerable field position. This was a good move. The question is why they did not persist with this in the second half?
McKenzie’s selection of Mogg and Toomua despite average performances in Sydney gave us long-kicking expertise, and faultless kick-off execution (it even rubbed off on Cooper, whose kick offs were also pinpoint).
I give a further thumbs up to Ewen on this one (although, in a forthcoming article I will outline why I would rotate Mogg out of the side for the moment).
Whether it was the introduction of Fardy or not, Australia markedly improved their breakdown performance. A tick to McKenzie again.
On the downside, Line out and scrum both went backwards from last week. Get used to more of this type of roller-coastering until the new coaching staff settle on their best combinations and establish their ideas with the group. A cross on this one.
How do we bridge the gap?
As a new coach, I believe all that Ewen could hope to do in these 2 games was to pick a side to play a game plan that would create point scoring opportunities for us, and limit them for the opposition. After that, he would just have hoped that through ability, instinct (thus picking combinations of Brumbies and Reds) and some luck, we would convert more of ours than they do. Unfortunately, the All Blacks are very efficient at quashing hopes and dreams.
As McKenzie has more time with the group, his influence on how the WBs convert their opportunities, and prevent the other side capitalising on their chances, will be expected to grow.
The former is about structure and selection. I think he is getting that right, piece by piece.
The latter is about instinct, belief, collective understanding, skills executed under pressure, and a “test match” mindset. This is where the All Blacks are still lightyears ahead of us at the moment.
The good news is we are doing less to beat ourselves as of last week. In my next article I will look at how we can learn from the All Blacks in converting more of our chances and killing off those of the other side.
mania
Guest
i was at my sons (regby league) prize giving when the game kicked off. it was playing at the club rooms and i had one eye on the TV. must say that from a distance it looked like WBs were owning ABs. when i got home and watched the game i was surprised with how often WBs let the ABs off the hook in the 1st 40. 2nd half ABs were in cruise mode.
Chan Wee
Guest
math is OZ conceeded double the penalties also they missed double the tackles (as a %). however the disciplne of ABs has gone down a little since they played France. they managed to hold off in defence a lt longer (maybe different referee ...) 35 line outs means it was a stop-start game , so maybe actual minutes of play must be taken into account. also it shows NZ went for touch a lot more than OZ, which again shows a change from the France tests whre they kept ball in play a lot and kicked to corners. think in the 1st test Nonu and Mccaw were penalised a lot but they manged to stay out of trouble in 2nd test. also the fact that penalties are conceeded by many rather than a few shows a football like attitude ( where in football, when a player in a yellow card others try to shied himand do the dirty work so that cards are spread among he eam ,same in basketball). something to look at for OZ , becoz highly likely there may be calls to send people off for repeat offenses. the mowen penalty was stupid from player and officious from ref. simply becoz the AB (retallick?) was not involved directly in the play and call came from touchie. there are worse cases of jersey pulling especially of chasing players, that are overlooked. i thought tomooa was also penalized twice on the oz 5m line within the first 10 minutes. he was lucky just as smith was when he held on to lealifano. just wonder if the rc collect stats of each game lie the english premier league (football) does and comes out wth it at the end of season.(like nuber of off sides,penalties , freekicks , goals etc per match, ).
Chan Wee
Guest
2nd test: AB 9 penalties to OZ 16. one interesting point is the comment from Horwill to the ref about the first test and the reply this is a new game. i am a firm believer that the MIB have all the skills in the game including the professional foul ! that tackle and subsequent holding of lealifano was a beauty. but the oz were poor even at tthis; tomooa was pinged twice on the oz 5m line for off-side play. the difference to me is tomooa shud have trusted the defence , where as smith had no choice becoz there was no one behid him. another point i would like oz fans to look at is the scrum penalties. although the coach moaned nd cribbed, even when deans was the coach oz scrum was under pressure and penalized often. so it maybe a case of poor front row rather than the LAW or the referees. In fact the ferench and arg scrum is much solid and have at times even had the all blacks going back !
Chan Wee
Guest
given the above comment and considering everyone thinks Folau does not see the ball enuf, how about playing him at 12? and Kimlin at 6. he played well for brumbies with george smith and imo will help hooper who is not of the same class (as smith or mccaw) I think the world has to fear the all blacks for a long time. the NZ under 20 champions of 2011 had Luatua , brad shields , dominic Bird , Francis Saili , Charles Piutau , Gareth Anscombe , TJ Parenara , Julien Savea , Sam Cane , Beuden BArrett , Ben Tameifuna , Luke Whitelock (skipper) to name a few. of the above only anscombe has not been to MIB wider training group (maybe becoz he was injured). that is a lot of quality players from one age-group team. this is highlighted specially given the poor showing of this year's team who finished 4th. not more than 4 layers stood out from th2 2013 team (savea junior, visinia emery marshall)
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Mark, this in a nutshell is THE difference between the sides.
richard
Guest
Hanson could be a transsexual and none of us kiwis would care.As long as he keeps winning.
chann wee
Guest
Ma8 , there was also a long pass to McCaw dropped , with a 3 on 4 overlap. and in the first 8 minutes there were two runs , one savea was tackled nicely by Folau. next run by Dagg tomooa went off side nicely inside 6m . ONE fact not looked at in detail in the article is where the penalties occurr AND more importantly the context. in test 1 when smith held onto lealifano, it killed a try , just as tomooa in 2nd test (twice). although horwill talked about it , both sides were guilty of the so called professional foul. another fact article shud take into account is th manner of scoring by both teams. the only try constructed by wallabies was for joc in the last minute of test one , where it was 14 vs 15. genia and folau both scored off mistakes , and mainly individual brilliance. one also needs to compare the AB team , with and without DC. (or even AC).
Henry WA
Guest
A simple solution for the scrum feed is for the half to be permitted to put the ball in as soon as he judges that the scrum is stable after the set takes place. If he is delaying unnecessarily for more than a 2 or 3 seconds, the Ref can call "put it in 9" which forces an immediate put in under risk of losing the feed. Halves will soon learn to feed quickly. The other possible solution is instead of calling the feed, the ref just touches the half. This doesn't alert the defending scrum to start its push. However it does mean that the ref always has to be on the same side of the scrum. I therefore prefer the first solution.
Aussie Rugby
Guest
The Wallabies to fix their set pieces. Get a solid scrum and get control of their own lineout ball. Next would be to control phases and breakdowns.
chuck
Guest
Dave H. Wallabies conceded 16 penalties. 6 came from the tackle area. 3 Srum offences. 4 Ruck area . 3 spread over offside play and holding players back. of the Wallabies 16 penalties 5 were conceded in their own 22. Stephen More was the most penalized Wallaby with 3 Michael Hooper and Scott Fardy with 2 each. All blacks 8 penalties were conceded. 4 were concede at the break down area. 4 was conceded in their own 22 by Aaron Smith,Sam Whitelock, Maa Nonu,and Israel Dagg. Tackles All blacks 116 missed 11 Wallabies 71 missed 13. Line out won on their own throw. all blacks won 14 of 19 Wallabies won 11 of 16. 35 lineouts in total. Nigel Imrie do the maths before you let your imagination run wild.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
I took a look at scrums, and all I was trying to do was spot the difference in shapes between each scrum. Luckily, Andrew Blades came on Rugby HQ during the week and showed some overhead angles of the scrums as well. The biggest difference I could see was that in the NZ scrum, the second rows were always tightly bound together as a unit at all times, and the number eight was head down and pushing. With the Wallaby scrum, I saw an occasion where Simmons was not even binding on Horwill right from the outset, and so Horwill went skew-if once the ABs started driving in sideways and our scrum looked like it disintegrated. On another occasion the two second rowers were literally pushing against one another at 45 degrees, with both of their backsides fanned outwards and Mowen having no opportunity to push on anything! The other thing I noticed was that the All black scrum from side on was perfectly flat along the backs of all 3 rows. The Wallaby scrum had Alexander with his bum higher than his shoulders, the second rowers doing the same, and then Ben Mowen also packing with his pushing angle aiming towards the turf. He also stopped pushing during the scrum on the majority of scrums. So, it doesn't look as though our props got the same coordinated push behind them that their counterparts did.
X.L.S Chiefs Fan
Guest
Maybe Nigel & Kearnsy can go halfs on a box of tissues before the next game ?? I mean there both pety, angry , delusional sooks .
Mark
Guest
In both games there was an entirely different attitude and reaction on counter attacks and line breaks. The All Blacks seem to have support players appearing on both sides of the player who has broken the line giving passing options whereas the Australian players tend to get isolated and have their breaks shut down quite qucikly. This was well illustrated by the O'Çonner break in the second test. Genia was on the outside but well covered by Dagg and OÇonnor was run down by the cover defense. The speed of transition from defense to attack by the All Blacks is at times breathtaking and is why they are so dangerous when they have broken down an opponents attacking play.
X.L.S Chiefs Fan
Guest
LOL, yeah Hansons definitely got a decent size pair of man boobs on him . If the ABs keep on winning then Adidas might have to make him a custom bra
Geoff Brisbane
Guest
Nigel the days and weeks and months and years are all numbered the problem is the delusion that occurs when a team does get a win then can't back it up and still thinking thry are the worlds best. If ABs decided to give the Wallabies a break and not play them so often which team would benefit most ? How many shots at them should Aus get, maybe its time for someone else to have the opportunity because there doesn't seem to be much happening. Therein people is my solution for the Wallabies revival, don't play NZ as often. And yes there have been some one off successes but really with the volume of games v the ABs the fallout has been horrific.
Tane Mahuta
Guest
They used it quite a few times with Deans as coach.
Harry Leventis
Roar Rookie
Got a great feeling about Luatua, I feel he is the next big thing off the production line, Messam has his work cut out.
Dave H
Guest
Actually I think ABs conceded less penalties, perhaps someone can confirm that? Also after the ridiculous dumby spit by Link I don't think refs will be looking to WBs any favours so: No I don't think our days are numbered. Sour grapes perhaps?
Nigel Imrie
Guest
With this new scrum the team feeding the ball is at a distinct disadvantage, the scrum is set,the ref tells the half when to put the ball in at the same time telegraphing to the opposing team when to shove, the half puts the ball in as instructed, the hooker gets ready to hook, in other words he is not pushing in the scrum but the opposition have still got an eight man shove on hence the team with the advantage of the feed gets demolished by the infringing team, the scrum bucked, pops what have you and then the penalty is given!! Thought we were suppose to reduce the number of penalties at scrum time not increase it, if we are not careful we will be revisiting some spinal injuries in the front row!! Once the scrum is set it should bebop to the attacking side when they put the ball in, it use to be done with a tap on the shoulder by the hooker in the old days, it's timing that we need not a loud speaker, the refs are already too involved!!!!
Nigel Imrie
Guest
You guys are fill of it! It's only a game and you guys are wining cos you are the best cheats in town, he'll how to stop Wallaby momentum just hive a penalty away we get the advantage, we kick 3 points but we could have got 5 plus conversion, After last weeks test I think the eyes of the refs will be scrutinizing you jokers from now on, your days are numbered at the top cuz so enjoy them while you can!!