FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Near statistical parity in the AB/NZ test

Near statistical parity in the AB/NZ test

Started by Mozart11 REPLIES343 VIEWS· 17 Sept 2013, 07:57
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Sept 2013, 07:57
#1
17 Sept 2013, 07:57#1
I have read comments to the effect that the Boks were kicking away all their possession and had no clue how to run the ball. The numbers reveal stats that are very close, particularly considering the Boks had one less defender. The Boks actually enjoyed a territorial and possession advantage in the first half.....they kicked the ball less than NZ. - Certainly they missed more tackles largely due to Willie, Pienaar and Jannie...but that aside the structural stats are very similar. And this was more a case of the NZ number being high, an 84% success rate is pretty decent. - NZ certainly crafted their tries better, but only one NZ try came with all the Boks on the park. So even that conclusion is tinged with a measure of doubt. - New Zealand / South Africa - 4 Tries 2 - 3 from 4 Conversion goals 1 from 2 - 1 from 2 Penalty goals 1 from 2 - 67.0% Kick at goal success 50.0% - 0 Dropped goals 0 - Kick/pass/run - 32 Kicks from hand 26 - 110 Passes 108 - 88 Runs 89 - 314 Metres run with ball 293 - Attacking - 52% (45%/58%) Possession (1H/2H) 48% (55%/42%) - 56% (44%/64%) Territory (1H/2H) 44% (56%/36%) - 3 Clean breaks 3 - 18 Defenders beaten 8 - 5 Offloads 3 - 63 from 71 (88.7%) Rucks won 65 from 70 (92.9%) - 1 from 1 (100.0%) Mauls won 6 from 7 (85.7%) - 15 Turnovers conceded 21 - Defensive - 105/8 Tackles made/missed 97/18 - 93.0% Tackling success rate 84.0% - Set pieces - 7 won, 2 lost (77.8%) Scrums on own feed 6 won, 0 lost (100.0%) - 15 won, 2 lost (88.2%) Lineouts on own throw 17 won, 2 lost (89.5%) - Sorry about the format, but with a bit of effort I think you will get the picture.
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
17 Sept 2013, 08:04
#2
17 Sept 2013, 08:04#2

 You forgot theres only one stat that counts ,29-15

Soon you and bean brain will be of one tiny little mind hahahaha! Another week and you may wel lbe outta your mind like him too ! any longer than that and you like beanhead will have turned it into victory !

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Sept 2013, 08:10
#3
17 Sept 2013, 08:10#3
Nope, believe me, we all remember that with great clarity.
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
17 Sept 2013, 09:48
#4
17 Sept 2013, 09:48#4

 Bet the stats from last year arent much different , Boks probably have more posession etc ,but the ABS dont need lots of posession to win .The really telling stat is tackles made /missed tackles ,defenders beaten and offloads .

What stats dont show is quality say of line breaks or kicks made  or what happens from turnovers  or line breaks . 

JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
17 Sept 2013, 09:52
#5
17 Sept 2013, 09:52#5

 Mozart, Kiwi rugby stats often show that team live of less possession (ball and field). Chiefs are a prime  example. It's is the amazing strike power of kiwi teams that wins games so I agree with Wardad on this one.

For sure the stats are very encourging for Boks. Especially give they played with 1 man down for most of the game!

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2013, 10:11
#6
17 Sept 2013, 10:11#6

 Moz please, the first ab try was not a try. Who saw the ball grounded. Nobody. Did the abs celebrate . NO. It only resulted in a try because of the stupid phrasing of the question to the TMO. The TMO couldnt see the ball grounded either.

JW fair comment. There can be no doubt whatsoever that given the huge handicap of playing with 14 men for 50 minutes( and in particlar being without the worlds best hooker) means these are very positive stats for the Boks.

warped dud of course rejoices in the ill gotten win by the abs - yet again.

I can only hope muncher is getting a glimmer. On the basis of what one saw the Boks were in with a very good chance to win. Also when the tables were turned for a few minutes and we had one more man on the field the abs were gonners big time.

 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Sept 2013, 10:12
#7
17 Sept 2013, 10:12#7
Stats can be very misleading and it is definitely a problem insofar as the tests between the AB's and the Springboks are concerned. Mozart was vey selective when it comes to miss tackles to blame Le Roux - top of his list of missed tackles - but conveniently left out players like Kruger who had 40 minutes playing time and missed 2 out of 5 attempted tackles. Also Kirchner who missed 2 out of 3 attempted tackles. It is not only the missed tackles of consequence here. Alberts played for circa 40 minutes - and his tackle count was extremely low for a loosie. The other issue is kicking - the number of kicks is of no consequence - what is important is the quality of the kicks. Tactical kicking is part of the game and so is relieving kicking. That is where Steyn and Pienaar was dreadfully poor. Their kicking was school boy stuff - and amounts in the main handing over possession to the opposition. For example missing the line when taking a penalty - is at best atrocious - especially when your team is under pressure.
OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
17 Sept 2013, 18:47
#8
17 Sept 2013, 18:47#8

Interesting Moz. Based on the stats and the comments above this would confirm that the game plans of the two sides are not dissimilar and it really comes down to execution by the players on the field. Which is the point I believe you were trying to make.

 

The Boks should be the best tackling team in the competition if they hope to beat the AB's. 

DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
17 Sept 2013, 20:27
#9
17 Sept 2013, 20:27#9

 Beeno, the ref asked for a reason not to award the try. I guess he was sure of the grounding, but thought there might have been a second movement or some other infringement,  which there wasn't.  Try in my book. Sad but true. We got hard done by with the yellow,  but that's rugby.

 

PS, what do you have to say about WP klapping da bools after playing with 14 against 15 for half the match? Epic stuff.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Sept 2013, 22:42
#10
17 Sept 2013, 22:42#10
Matey 88 runs for 314 metres doesn't seem much different from 89 runs for 293 metres...especially when the side giving up more metres had less tacklers for 40 minutes of the game. Once again, we blew some attacking positions right on the line, NZ converted their chances......that would be your difference.
OL
OleCruzRookie44 posts
18 Sept 2013, 04:12
#11
18 Sept 2013, 04:12#11

I've only watched the game once, but what I saw was a noticeable difference in terms of execution. Not massive, but it ends up making the difference. The ABs do the ABC extremely well most of the time. Their repositioning in attack was exquisite. Their handling of the contact points was immense, especially against such physical specimens like the Boks. And then you have players like Barrett, Smith... guys that can punish the slightest defensive inadequacies.

 

I think the Boks would benefit from the expertise of Omar Mouneimne.

OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
18 Sept 2013, 05:21
#12
18 Sept 2013, 05:21#12

OleCruz - we need you to pull off a major upset next week !!! Keep them out of the bonus points too !!!

 

 

 

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news