You are browsing the archive for Super14.

by Austin

Wallaby Attack Analysis

August 27, 2010 in Australian Rugby, News by Austin

No Gravatar

The Wallabies attack hasn’t exactly set the world on fire in 2010 – so what can be improved?

In this video I’ve looked at a short sequence of phases in the 3rd minute of Bledisloe 2 to show what I think needs to be improved.  Whilst there are other issues, the themes shown in this video are the most recurrent for me and have been repeated game after game this season.

In summary the issues are:

  • One out runners with little support;
  • Playing with too much depth with the ball runner receiving the ball too far away from the contact line;
  • Players not committing defenders before they pass;
  • Attackers not realigning quickly enough which is creating slow ball – in my opinion it’s not the halfback creating slow ball in the majority of cases;
  • A lack of organisation that results from a lack of any sort of attacking structure;
  • A lack of innovation.

 There’s no rocket science here – just paying attention to the basics.

Share on Facebook

Post to Twitter

by Austin

Video: Wallaby Backline Asking Questions?

July 6, 2010 in Australian Rugby, News by Austin

No Gravatar

In the first four games of the season the Wallabies have used a relatively young back line with some new combinations.  There’s been plenty of discussion elsewhere about how the individual players have been performing and what the makeup of the back line should be.

What I want to focus on is how the back line has been combining and more importantly, what directions they’ve been receiving from the coaches.  In this video we look at a sample of the plays the Wallabies have been using – some with success and some not.

With modern defences being so good, teams have to use use more than inside switches, quick hands across the back line and simple run arounds to ask questions of the defence.  A good back line will have a number of starter plays to use from set pieces and another set of plays for subsequent phases.  They’ll practice these over and over again in training until they become second nature and every player knows their role exactly so when the play-maker calls the move, it can be implemented quickly.

One of the reasons for having these moves is to take advantage of a hole or an opportunity in the defensive line.  This is why it’s important for players to “play what’s in front of them”.  If there’s a hole in the defensive line, simply passing the ball to the player nearest the hole may not work because defences will adjust to plug that hole but running a move with a decoy runner to hold defenders out of that hole may preserve the space and lead to a line break.  It’s also important to “play what’s in front of you” by identifying mismatches in the defensive line, so that for example if a slower prop gets caught in the back line you take full advantage of the opportunity that creates.  Again simply passing the ball to the player the prop’s marking may not be enough to take advantage of the opportunity so a move can be used to deceive the defence into thinking the play is being targeted at another section of the line by using decoy runners, meaning that defenders don’t focus on supporting the prop and the player who actually gets the ball gets into a one on one situation with a much slower, less agile defender.

The other reason moves are such a big part of back line play is that quite often the defensive line is intact with no major mismatches, partcularly from a srum or lineout where the defence has had time to get set.  In those cases, “playing what’s in front of you” would be negative because there’s a solid wall in front of you, so you use one of your arsenal of plays to “move what’s in front of you”. 

A well designed move that’s been practiced and is executed well can unlock even the best defence.  If a particular move doesn’t work, you try another option.  Once you’ve used a move you may choose to not run it again so the opposition can’t get a read on what you’ve done or you run a variation of that move to fool the defenders into thinking they know where the ball’s going.  You may also run a double bluff on the basis that the defence will think you wouldn’t use the same move twice in a row, which you go ahead and do!

Regardless of your strategy, back lines need to keep asking questions of the defence using their moves, particularly from set pieces.  It may be too complicated to run moves regularly from subsequent phases.

So, has the Wallaby back line been asking questions of the defence in the first four games of the season?  The answer is – absolutely not!  Of the 86 times the Wallaby back line has been in position to run the ball without forwards being in the line, they’ve used a one out crash ball runner 10% of the time, the first receiver has run the ball 20% of the time, they’ve used a short runner (normally one of the wingers) off Quade Cooper’s hip 24% of the time and have shifted the ball wide through the hands 46% of the time.

Only once in those 86 possessions have the Wallabies used a move – for the first try against England in Sydney.  This relatively young back line with individuals like Quade Cooper, Matt Giteau and James O’Connor in it (who can all create something from nothing) has been playing extremely conservatively. 

What has created this conservatism?

Is it that the back line has been getting poor ball from the set pieces? That has been an issue from some of the scrums against the English but lineout ball has been quite good.  I haven’t seen an instance where the Wallaby back line had something planned and had to cancel it because of poor set piece ball.

Is it that the quality of the halfback’s passes have been so poor that they’ve decided they can’t rely on quality ball so should just wait and see what the pass looks like and then decide what to do.  This may be part of the issue but whilst there have been too many poor passes from Luke Burgess and Will Genia, there haven’t been that many that this should have changed the way the back line plays.

Is it that players are still getting used to Quade Cooper?  Again, that may be part of the problem but in their one attempt at a move this year the Wallabies got it exactly right, opened a gaping hole in the English defence and scored a good try.  The players didn’t seem to have any issues working out where Quade would be and where he’d throw the pass.

Is it that Matt Giteau is playing so poorly that he’s interrupting the flow of the back line?  That may also be part of the problem – I certainly don’t think the Cooper / Giteau combination is working at the moment.  Whether that’s Cooper’s or Giteau’s problem, it is an issue that needs to be resolved.  Certainly the Cooper / Barnes combination looked better in the game against England in Perth so that would suggest Giteau is the one that needs to adapt to Cooper, not the other way around.

Whilst I think all three of these issues are contributing factors, I don’t think any of these issues would lead to the players making a decision on the field to stop running moves.  If they’d tried ten moves and nine went wrong, that may happen but the reality is they’ve tried one move in the second game of the season and nailed it perfectly!

As I’ve already noted elsewhere on the site, there were no moves practiced by the back line in the two training sessions I attended before the Ireland test.  So the only explanation I can come up with is that they’ve been told by the coaches not to run moves.  Who would give them those instructions?  I can’t see Richard Graham taking that sort of decision without telling Robbie Deans so this must be a directive from the head coach.

So why would the coaches implement this policy?  The only possible explanation I can think of is that they want to keep their moves away from the Springboks and All Blacks so they can spring a great surprise on them in the Tri Nations.  No, scrap that idea - it would make absolutely no sense not to use the last four games to practice their moves ready to be used as a weapon in the Tri Nations.  At the end of the day knowing a move is coming is one thing but with variations of the same move, you can never know for sure which runner is the decoy and which one will be the striker and the success of any move is more about how it’s executed than the design.

So I’ve got no answer for you! Help me out – why has the Wallaby back line not been asking questions of the opposition?

Bulls & Stormers dominate SA Super14 awards

June 15, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

Players from the Super 14 finalist Bulls and Stormers have unsurprisingly monopolised the nominations in the race for the title of South African Super 14 Player of the Year award, the South African Rugby Union announced on Tuesday.

by Austin

Wallabies v Fiji: Statistics

June 7, 2010 in Australian Rugby, News by Austin

No Gravatar

 You know the score, you’ve seen the game and you’ve probably formed a view on what the Wallabies did well and what they can improve on.  What do the statistics show? Do they support your views on what happened in the game?

Throughout the Wallabies 2010 campaign we’ll bring you previews, live calls, match reports and after match analysis (including statistics).  Our statistical analysis isn’t just a series of numbers regurgitated from another source – these are statistics prepared by the Green and Gold Rugby team so we can all dig a little deeper into an analysis of the game.  

You can download the complete team statistics here and player statistics here. What do you glean from the numbers that we haven’t touched on? If you’ve got suggestions as to statistics you’d like to see, let us know.

Whilst statistics are only one part of match analysis they are a good way to spot trends, both positive and negative, to reinforce what a team is doing well or come up with solutions for problem areas.

Tomorrow we’ll publish a more detailed analysis (including the statistics) of how Quade Cooper and Matt Giteau operated during the game.

Let’s look at some of the key statistics from Saturday’s game.  First, the set pieces.

  WALLABIES  FIJI  
  1st Half2nd HalfMatch1st Half2nd HalfMatch
LineoutsBall Thrown In96158513
 Won8513437
 Lost1-1426
 Throw Not Straight------
 Pen/FK For-11---
 Pen/FK Against------
 Won %89%100%93%50%60%54%
  WALLABIES  FIJI  
  1st Half2nd HalfMatch1st Half2nd HalfMatch
ScrumsBall Fed538639
 Won527538
 Lost------
 Pen/FK For-111-1
 Pen/FK Against------
 Won %100%100%100%100%100%100%

 

The Wallabies lineout was good but was never really challenged by Fiji.  The one loss seemed to be a timing problem – the throw was accurate but the Wallabies were a little slow getting Nathan Sharpe up and as a consequence the ball went over the back.  From a defensive point of view, the Wallabies took 6 of the Fijian lineouts and Dean Mumm exerted good pressure at the front.  It’s obviously going to be a much greater challenge next week against the English.

The Wallaby scrum was solid enough but I think the Fijian scrum looked a little more comfortable.  With the loss of Alexander this could be an area of concern next week.

Now let’s look at possession statistics.

  WALLABIES   FIJI   
  1st Half2nd HalfMatch%1st Half2nd HalfMatch%
Duration of1 Phase1271933%841234%
Possession2 Phases1392238%751233%
 3-5 Phases761322%34719%
 Over 5 Phases1347%14514%
 Total332558100%191736100%
Total Phases 7368141 4673119 
in Possession         
Average Phases 333354
in Possession        

 

In attack, the Wallabies had the ball 58 times compared to 36 times for Fiji.  In those possessions the Wallabies had 141 phases (an average of 3 per possession) whilst Fiji had 119 phases (an average of 4 per possession).  The Wallabies ran the ball close to the breakdown 52% of their phases and ran wide of the breakdown 30% of the time,  only kicking on 10% of their phases.  With first phase possession 50% of the Wallabies play was directed close to the breakdown and only 5% to kicking.  Hopefully this ball in hand style is part of the plan going forward.

Of the 14 phases where the Wallabies kicked, 5 were negative (36%). Quade Cooper kicked on out on the full when the ball had been passed back into the 22 and wasted possession with a chip that no-one else seemed to know was on.  Matt Giteau sliced one off the side of his boot when clearing from the line, pulled one into touch on the full from outside his 22 and wasted possession with a misdirected cross field kick which Fiji marked easily.  There’s room for improvement in this area.

The Wallabies had the advantage in line breaks 10 to 2 and in offloads 14 to 10.  However, they also had the advantage in possession lost through dropped ball, 15 to 9.  Twelve of these occasions were in their attacking half and some really good attacking opportunities were spoilt through poor ball control.  Fortunately 10 of the 15 occasions where the ball was lost were in the first half, so hopefully the players were just a little rusty being the first game together for the season.

At the breakdown, the numbers suggest the Wallabies were effective with 96% retention of the 103 times they took the ball in with only 4 breakdowns lost (3 through a penalty/free kick and 1 stolen ball).  Fiji had a 96% retention from the 94 times they took the ball into the breakdown and the Wallabies obviously went in with a plan not to commit to the breakdowns.  Both teams had a 93% retention rate when they took the ball into a breakdown on 1st phase.  I think the Wallabies will have to commit more players to the breakdown against the English this week – we don’t want to give them too much uncontested ball.

Defence statistics were as follows:

WALLABIES
1st Half2nd HalfMatch%
DefenceTackles Attempted44108152
Made4293135
Missed21517
Made %95%86%89%
Tackles – Dominant13162921%
Tackles – Completed297710679%

 

In defence the Wallabies made 135 tackles but missed 17 (an 89% success rate).  Quade Cooper missed two but Dean Mumm, Rocky Elsom and Luke Burgess topped the count with three each.

Penalties and free kicks went the Wallabies way 15 to 8.

Three of the Wallabies tries came from a turnover or counter attack and Digby Ioane can take a lot of the credit for this with an individual try after David Pocock secured a turnover at the breakdown and then a great run in counter attack to link with Kurtly Beale and then take the return pass to score.

What about player involvement?

PlayerCarriesLine BreaksDominant Tackles MadeTotal Tackles MadeTackles MissedSuccessful Tackle %Tries Scored
Ben Alexander6-28-100%-
Huia Edmonds3-25-100%-
Salesi Ma’afu6-17-100%-
Dean Mumm13125363%-
Nathan Sharpe18-39-100%-
Rocky Elsom13-313381%-
David Pocock4-312-100%-
Richard Brown11-211-100%1
Luke Burgess8-213381%-
Quade Cooper25227278%1
Adam Ashley-Cooper11113-100%-
Matt Giteau13-13175%-
Rob Horne81210-100%-
Digby Ioane152-5183%2
Kurtley Beale142-2-100%2
Saia Faingaa3-25183%-
Pekahou Cowan1--6186%-
Matt Hodgson--19190%-
Drew Mitchell91-2167%1
Total18110291351789%7

 

In terms of work rate, Rocky Elsom led from the front but the backrow were all well involved.  I liked the involvement of Nathan Sharpe and Dean Mumm in taking the ball up – I like to see big locks creating go forward for a team, not just supporting and cleaning out.  Ben Alexander also got involved but Huia Edmonds was a little quiet and maybe that is one of the reasons he’s playing in the Barbarians game this week.

So, what do you think?  Are there other areas you’d  like statistics on or areas where you’d like the Green and Gold Rugby team to conduct an analysis on?

Bulls beat Stormers and win the last Super 14

May 29, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

The Bulls won the last ever Super 14 by beating the Stormers 25-17 in the 2010 Super14 final after leading 16-3 at half time. The Stormers outscored the Bulls by two tries to one but Morne Steyn

Bulls coach not worried Stormers defence stats

May 28, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

Bulls coach Frans Ludeke believes the fact that this weekend's Super 14 final will see the Super14's best attack going up against the Super14's best defence will mean little when the teams meet.

Stormers want a better scrum for Bulls

May 26, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

The Stormers are hoping that versatile prop JC Kritzinger will be in the squad to face the Bulls at Orlando Stadium in Soweto on Saturday in the Super 14 final.

Stormers try sets up all SA Super14 final

May 24, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

A moment of individual brilliance by Western Stormers centre Juan de Jongh put his team on the way to their first Super 14 southern hemisphere championship final when they beat New South Wales Waratahs 25-6 at Newlands Saturday.

2010 Super 14 Semi-Finalists confirmed

May 16, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

Following the conclusion of the 14 rounds of Super 14 rugby the 2010 Super 14 Semi-finalists have been decided.

Stormers now huge favourites for Semi-finals

May 13, 2010 in News, Super 14 by Main Super Rugby Headlines

The Stormers are now huge favourites to make the semi-finals as the Super 14 enters one of its most exciting final rounds of league competition as six teams are set to battle it out for three playoff places.

Switch to our mobile site