The supposed fitness of the Wallabies has been discussed most of this year, with many highlighting the lack of cohesion in the Wallabies last 20 minutes as evidence.
Looking deeper, a lack of fitness should be seen in more tries conceded in the last 20 minutes. A structural issue would be seen as a more even spread in the tries conceded throughout the match.
From the 16 games played, I divided each game into quarters and looked at when the tries were scored.
The June tour by England show a the Wallabies making strong starts at the kick-offs, but losing the last quarter. Fitness certainly would be part of the problem here, with composure close behind.
Total across all three games (tries scored/conceded per quarter)
3/2
2/2
3/1
1/3
New Zealand did a number on us. Of the 45 tries conceded in the year, New Zealand scored 16 at an average of five tries per match. The All blacks started well, controlled the middle of the game and then relaxed in the last 20 minutes when the replacements were made.
0/4
1/5
0/5
1/2
When we look at the spring tour the numbers do look healthier, reaching parity with the Northern Hemisphere teams. Michael Cheika’s half time talks remain potent, but the Wallabies leaked tries on either side of half time, and lost the last quarter as well.
3/3 4/4 5/4 3/4 All Matches Spring Tour
2/2 2/4 4/4 2/3 Scotland, France, Ireland, England
Looking across the entire year, excluding New Zealand, the numbers look better.
11/7 8/7 11/7 6/8
In attack, the first and thirds quarters look red-hot, but this is somewhat misleading. The spikes here come solely from the first Argentina game, with three tries in the first 20 minutes, two more in the third quarter. Given the win/loss ratio is 50/50, please be careful reading too much into this attacking stat.
In defence, the tries conceded were spread across the entire match. This seems to indicate a structural problem on our defensive set-up, not fitness, as the main cause. This is doubly true looking at the Spring tour, when our team roster was well settled.
It is clear that the Wallabies real problem is a structural defence issue.
cuw
Guest
yep ur correct, it is reported that the fastest ever human speed was by BOLT in the 100m sprint , during the 60 - 80 m split at 44.7kmph. it was reported he ran those 20m in 1.6 seconds. it was said the Berlin 2009 track and the conditions were the ideal as u can get for a sprinter. he never ran that sort of speed before or after. however, Bolt has run 150m in 14.35 seconds - but on a straight lane. when he ran the world record the split for 150m was 14.44 sec comparatively , the split for 150m when Michael Johnson ran the 200m in 19.30 sec is 14.475 sec !!!!!
Taylorman
Guest
When you say performed...he didn't run at peak 'speed' for 140 meters. Firstly you have to build up from the start. Over 100 meters peak speed is always at about 60 meters, then they tail off slightly, fatigue...the lactic acid burns, setting in even after that short a run. Bolt ran 9.58 for 100m and 19.19 for 200m. Double 9.58 is 19.16 so the second 100 m is appreciably slower because of the running start as opposed to the stationary start of the first 100. And for anyone who's ever run a 200 sprint race they will confirm 100% that you are nowhere near peak speed at the finish line. If the max speed reached at 60 m were maintained through to 200...a physical impossibility...Bolt would have hit in the region of 16 or 17 s for the 200.
cuw
Guest
well it was said that in his world record run over 200m , BOLT performed at 100% for around 140m . that he was less than 100% over the first 40m and the last 20m . that had he run the last 20m also at 100% he could have dipped under the 19 second barrier.
Dante
Guest
HiKa, perfect analysis. What is it Cheika & co see/know that the experts are missing ? Only thing I'd add is, don't select a player out of position at test level. Try them at club level first.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Think there's some truth in that. Fitness can still be an issue because you can't pull everyone off but it's just as likely that the Wallabies lack of real depth is a cause too. Teams like England can put replacements on and lose very little, in some positions gain.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
I'd argue that any evidence of a lack of fitness could also be traced back to structures (and technical skills). I'd be surprised if there were any significant difference in basic strength and fitness levels between any of the very top rugby teams. They are all working with the same information about what works and doesn't work for diet and exercise. What manifests as superior fitness for the ABs is actually more efficient and effective patterns of play (and more efficient and effective individual technique in executing plays). The WBs "running game" doesn't use smart kicking to relieve pressure (lower exertion) when the forwards are struggling, so our forwards tire sooner than their opponents. Our backs are playing musical chairs when switching from attack to defence and back again, and so are running around more than their opponents. I think any perception of lack of fitness traces back to our style of play requiring a fitness advantage over our opponents, which doesn't exist against the ABs (nor England). Bottom line is that we will snag occasional wins but won't be consistent against the very best opposition until we start playing a more balanced style of rugby, and have a backline that generally defends and attacks in the same positions.
Pete
Guest
It's poor structure followed by poor ability followed by lack of composure when under pressure and behind on score board Structure - too many players being shuffled out of position because of issue of poor ability Ability - players who can tackle - Foley, players who can't or don't know how to position for there position -Folau should be on wing, can't defend consistently from full back or centre - Pocock and Hooper, two 7s no balance in loose when both on paddock Composure - have lost it completely at times when they just have no answer to fast counter attack Poor coaching and selections - If you don't have a complete game and that means not being a passenger in defence you should not be on paddock - there is no where to hide a poor tackler in modern fast game where counter attack will come at anytime from anywhere And finally with Australia lacking a kicking game and Foley can't kick further than 20 metres you are just putting yourselves under pressure from wrong places on the paddock - when you have players who can't markup and you are trying to shuffle them out of the attack zone and got no paddock to play with it's a big ask to get any structure consistently DHP to fullback and start using his kicking game plus he doesn't go missing at various times, Folau back to wing where he excelled at league and starting rugby career - from a kiwi please make him a centre it will make it even easier for ABs to score tries through midfield plus negate any ability he has to take high kicks or be any use in counter attack - he will be to tired from tackling to be effective at anything else The cattle and there mental ability is biggest issue and until you get that right no structure will save you
grapeseed
Guest
If lack of fitness contributed to a poorer defensive outcome, I would expect to see this manifest in the third, not fourth quarter. The 60th to 80th minute is when the unfit guys get pulled and replaced by the 8 reserves. Specifically look for tries against us between the 50th and 60th minutes.
Linphoma
Guest
Say it ain't so Joe.
Jcr
Guest
Spiro retiring ? say it's not true . One of you rugby brains do an article on him or even better interview him.
Taylorman
Guest
Well strictly speaking even in the 100 they max out between 60 and 80 but I agree with the managing of the fluctuations and am assuming managing the recovery time is part of those fluctuations. Anyone knows fitness in team sport is about recovery levels, how quick one can go full out, rest, then go again, and when they do, whether they can reach those same levels.
Jcr
Guest
I don't get it when everyone says , unfit , bollocks , they are fit, the structure is the issue. No one anywhere ,anytime, any sport can perform at 100% over more than a 100 metre sprint. . The trick is managing the fluctuations .
Brian
Guest
Quite right. Balance and structure. Know when too.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
So many phases, too many dumies, unclean breaks, then you loose the ball and have several players infront of the pill and it is hard to re aling fast enough into defence and your legs are tire from the attacking effort. Is all about the balance. If you have a balance offence you will be able to have a good defence.