Analysis: What Do You Want?

For the remaining games, what kind of analysis would you like to see? Player? Team? Situations? Set pieces? Set Plays? Defence? Tries? Match ups? Anything else? 

1. Descriptive Analysis:
2. Exploratory Analysis:
3. Inferential Analysis:
4. Predictive Analysis:
5. Causal Analysis:
6. Mechanistic  Analysis:

AO

The issues mentioned by you missed out on one important issue - namely combination functioning - eg the back three, the centers, the halfbacks, the Tight 5, the loosies. 

Individual analysis in one test is not important - what is important is determination of tendencies as to performance in a series of matches iro most of the issues mentioned by you.   That cover for the cases where a player under-perform in one game - while in other games in a series he was top class, 

Another important issue is objectivity and that is were he wheels come off in most cases as prejudice can never produce a proper analysis.        

Prejudice? Clever Mike. There is noone more prejudice than you, certainly not on Ruckersforum. For someone that contributes so little, you are quite opinionated. 

If you want to watch how certain payers link, we can do that. I have been logging the interactions between 9 and 10, 9 and 15, 10 and 15 and 10 and 12. Those are mandatory in all of my notes, as well as numerous details about every ruck and all the set pieces. 

I do not manufacture lies to discredit players - I leave that to you and Mozart.   Objectivity on your part is non-existent,

Your comments are not really of value.   There are recognized combinations in rugby - you seem to want to create your own combinations and fabrications - like the one of Louw being effective - a fact which is recognized by sport commentators and had a series of major contributions by journalists.   Making Louw a top contributor in the first Puma test is how you distort the game analysis.

Careful - when I say a player is useless - it is based on fact not fabrication - and I am normally proved to be actual as situations develop.   Because I said something - the reaction on the part of Mozart, you and Pakie is always the same and making it a matter for personal attacks.  So what really is the analysis value coming from you - I do not think much is  to b e expected. .             

We don't need personal attacks. Hence we always provide substantial information to these discussions. When all is said and done, the main body of work you produce are numbers, whatever quotes you can find and personal attacks. That's the game plan you have been sticking to for as long a I have been here. 

There are so little facts attached to anything you say that I can't understand how you manage to find the support from other members that you do. Your misuse of numbers, incorrect calculations, elaborations on quotes, the way you create an entirely fictitious narrative without any fact as a foundation. It's truly laughable. That's before we get into the manner in which you turn most threads into a Morné, Alberts, Meyer, Frans, Victor, Jake debate, with the same repetitive wording, over and over again. We'll, I should give you some credit; you are now using Louw and Esterhuizen.

Some facts when Esterhuizen was the most productive centre o n the weekend! 

How about more on the use of pods ? Over the years this is one aspect of rugby that doesnt seem to get the attention it deserves .

When I played pods were for plants and alien monsters .

How about the defenses with particular focus on the off-side line? We could also look at the ways teams are trying to deal with the rush defense .

The All Black use of PODs is more creative than that of Argentina or South Africa. With the latter two you basically have a flat line of 3 forwards and they'll pass to the middle runner. Sometimes it takes the shape of an arrow and the two outer forwards will clean the ensuing ruck. If we are lucky they'll pass out the back to a back, usually 10 lurking behind. The Stormers used to use Damian extensively behind a POD in the middle of the field. They'd try to get him around the edge of the defence into space.

PODs typically comprise three men, but can be four. The Saders have used 4 forwards in one, with two sets of two used elsewhere. The 4 being in the middle of the field. It's basically a way of organising the forwards into groups and directing them around the field. For many years the Cheetahs had a forward out wide, such as Strauss or Ashley Johnson. If you play wide, you'd have a forward or two out there to ensure you have a strong carrier or cleaner. Wide plays are riskier as you are more likely to be turned over if you don't get past the last defender. The wide-wide pattern of some teams is backed by that 2 man pod out wide.

You can have forwards grouped in with backs, like New Zealand had in the diagram I posted last week. Where they had B2 between two backs. Some call this a POD as well. You'll see teams use a two layer grouping, with two players in front and two beneath. I call this the box formation. It's something I haven't seen much this year. It can be made up of 4 forwards, 3 forwards and a back or whatever other personnel that suits what you are trying to do. The Boks used the box formation a lot under Meyer, and they'd often have two backs underneath and use the forwards as a screen. 

That's another use for PODs, screens. They can be flat lying or staggered. It can vary a bit. Passes behind the forwards to the backs. Argentina had a very good one on the weekend. 08:35 Sanchez had a 3 man POD in the middle of the field. They came up flat, not condensed. He threw a pass from the front of the first runner, in between him and the second to P12 in behind. It totally fooled the Boks. Fortunately, Mapimpi was quick enough to adjust, or P12 would have been outside the edge of the defence with a 3v1 right outside the Bok 22!

I think that pretty much covers everything. Some things to look out for, Argentina will have a 3 man POD outside 9 close in when they want to punch it up. Look who they have behind them and you'll see what they have in mind in subsequent rucks or if this is a decoy. When they want to play a bit wider they'll go 9 wide to 10 and have a flat POD coming up quickly outside of 10 for a hit up. That's how they began generating momentum in the first test. Eventually they began breaking down the Bok defence and got their backs into the game, along with great work from their forward carriers, who offloaded well.

The Boks do something similar to the above but they don't use 10 as a link to get width. They'll typically use a POD as a screen for 10 who'll have 15 wide and shallow, sometimes deep. Willie is the playmaker getting the wings into the game etc. 

For the next few games, I can post the POD usage for you. Are you just interested in the All Black tests? I wouldn't blame you if you were. It's very interesting seeing what they do. 

Cheers mate just the way its developed over the years I find interesting.