In part one of this article on the ruck contest/, I looked at the various elements involved in ruck play and how the Wallabies have been performing in those elements.
Part two now goes into detail on how I rated each player’s performance in rucks on the recent end of year tour.
Again, given the detail in the analysis this may be an article to bookmark and work through over the holiday break.
Assessing individual performance at the ruck
As I’ve already said, when measuring performance of players, involvement rates and effectiveness must be considered. The question is coming up with a measure that covers both areas.
A couple of months ago a rugby blog in Ireland called ‘Digging Like A Demented Mole’ came up with a system for measuring ruck involvements and used that system to rate the performance of the Lions players in the series against the Wallabies.
Quite apart from the statistical analysis included in the article the rugby analysis in the article is also excellent and you’ll find other great articles on their website.
In order to have a uniform approach to rating performance, they defined what they consider the key involvements in a ruck and assigned a number of points for each type. They then assigned points for the involvements in each ruck in the three test series to come up with a total number of points for each Lions player.
By assigning points for each involvement, the more work a player does the more points they accumulate and the more effective the involvements, the higher their total score. Therefore both involvements and effectiveness are factored in.
I liked the idea and decided to use the break between the end of the international season and when our club rugby pre-season kicks into full swing to apply the system to the Wallabies.
Rather than go back and look at the Lions series I’ve analysed the five matches on the recent end of year tour.
The points scoring system
Before I started reviewing each match I decided to make some minor modifications to the system proposed by ‘Demented Mole’.
The system is based on five types of involvements and a point score of between one and five for each. I agreed with each of these rankings but added in some further definition and other involvements that I wanted to look at separately so that my list ended up as follows:
- 5 points – turnover in a defensive ruck (clean turnover or penalty awarded) to which I added a turnover saved in an attacking ruck where the player was clearly the one who prevented a turnover in an attacking ruck – this occurs when the opposition get into the ruck first, get their hands on the ball and so have a clear shot at a turnover but the arriving player cleans the opposition player out before they can complete the turnover;
- 4 points – decisive involvement in an attacking or defensive ruck where the cleanout removes the opposition player from being a factor anymore – that could be by driving them out of the area or by driving them off their feet so they can’t play the ball;
- 3 points – hitting either an attacking or defensive ruck which involves a real hit, not a lean on the ruck – to which I added a ‘save’ where there is no other player on their feet to hit but the player gets in position over the ball ready to save possession should an opposition player enter the ruck. Whilst there is no physical contact involved here if the player was not in position there would be nothing to stop the opposition coming into the ruck and picking up the ball. To be classified as a ‘save’ the player has to be directly over the ball, not alongside it;
- 2 points – a player in the guard position on the edge of an attacking ruck – whilst there may be no physical contact in this involvement with the opposition it is this player that provides the protection to the halfback because they effectively prevent the opposition from diving at the halfback as they pick the ball up. There is no recognition for a guard in defensive rucks;
- 1 point – for a player that is present at an attacking ruck who is not in the guard position and has not hit the ruck but is available to take action should the opposition counter attack. Typically this is the player that some may describe as leaning on the ruck. Whilst some may say this player should not receive any credit, they have made it to the ruck and are ready to participate but then make a good decision not to just hit the ruck for the sake of it. However, no points are awarded for a player just standing around or arriving late once the ball is available and already protected by others. Also, no points are given for a player who is just present in a defensive ruck.
In another difference from the ‘Demented Mole’ system I decided that points should be deducted for errors made by players at rucks.
As I commented in part one of this article, accuracy is very important and inaccurate involvements can have as much of a negative effect as an accurate involvement can have a positive effect so there should be recognition of positive and negative involvements.
I decided on three categories for the deduction of points:
- Deduct 1 point – an ineffective hit in either an attacking or defensive ruck where the opposition player is not removed as a threat and continues to be a factor in the ruck. An example is where a player hits an opposition player who is able to stay on their feet and despite being in a wrestle is still close enough to play the ball with their feet;
- Deduct 3 points – a missed cleanout in either an attacking or defensive ruck where the player misses the opposition player they were trying to clean out or hits the opposition player but then releases them so that they can get back to the ruck to disrupt the ball so that another player has to come in and clean out the opposition player again;
- Deduct 5 points – where a player is penalised in a ruck or their ineffective or missed cleanout resulted in the opposition player turning over the ball. No points are deducted for any ball carrier that was penalised for holding on to the ball – that is the supporter’s problem, not that of the ball carrier.
For all involvements only one score is awarded. For example a player who makes a decisive hit in a defensive ruck and then turns over the ball in that ruck is only awarded five points for the turnover not nine points (four for the decisive hit and five for the turnover).
I rated each involvement on what happened, not what I thought should have happened. So, where I thought the referee’s decision to award a penalty was wrong I still awarded points based on the referee’s decision rather than my interpretation and if a player hit a defensive ruck when I thought they should have just re-aligned in defence instead, I still awarded points for the hit.
Involvements
First, let’s look at involvements. Given the different number of minutes played, I’ve recorded involvements on a per 80 minutes played basis rather than the total number of involvements.
I’ve also included the involvements in every category I listed earlier including the negative involvements as this measure is about how much work a player is doing, so even if the involvement was negative they still worked to get involved.
I’ve separated the numbers for the players who started in the majority of their minutes played and for those who came off the bench for the majority of their minutes.
Using this measure Fardy was significantly ahead with 100.56 points per 80 minutes played, Hooper was second with 78.03, James Horwill third with 74.73 and Rob Simmons fourth with 70.45.
Obviously the backs points are much lower with Toomua again the top performer with 39.33 points per 80 minutes played.
The two disappointing numbers are that for Slipper at 52.85 points per 80 minutes played and Ben Mowen with 52.92.
Simmons topped the points for attacking rucks with Fardy and Horwill close behind.
For defensive rucks Fardy was significantly ahead of all others with Hooper a distant second. Hooper achieved 8 turnovers but conceded 7 defensive ruck penalties in doing so whilst Fardy achieved 7 turnovers but only conceded 1 penalty in defensive rucks.
These measures combine involvements with effectiveness of involvements. The following graphs show the average points for each ruck involvement so measures effectiveness only.
Wallabies – 2013 EOYT Points Per Ruck Involvement
Wallabies Bench Players – 2013 EOYT Points Per Ruck Involvement
Overall Will Genia was the most effective with 3.08 points per involvement, Adam Ashley-Cooper was second with 3.06. In the forwards Horwill was the most effective with each involvement with 2.92 points per involvement followed by Moore with 2.86 and Fardy with 2.83.
The two low numbers that stand out are Hooper with 2.22 and Mowen with 1.97. These numbers are impacted by the deduction of points for negative involvements, particularly with penalties conceded in the ruck (10 for Hooper and 7 for Mowen) whereas Horwill only conceded 3 penalties and Fardy 2 in the ruck.
When I looked at the average points per involvement excluding negative involvements all together Hooper’s ranking amongst the forwards improves but Mowen’s was still the lowest amongst the forwards.
Again, I don’t think comparing the effectiveness of bench players against the starters is a valid comparison. As an example I don’t think it’s valid to use the fact that Liam Gill averaged 3.22 points per involvement, 45% higher than Hooper’s 2.22, to support the claim that Gill is more effective in the ruck than Hooper.
Gill was certainly efficient but only played 25 minutes and had a total of 9 ruck involvements compared to Hooper’s 366 minutes and 162 ruck involvements.
This data does not tell us that had Gill had the same amount of playing time as Hooper he would have been that much more efficient.
Genia, Horwill and Ashley-Cooper topped the effectiveness rating for attacking rucks, although Genia only had 8 attacking ruck involvements.
Moore topped the effectiveness rating for defensive rucks but four of the backs, Genia, Quade Cooper, Tevita Kuridrani and Israel Folau were similarly effective.
The three players whose average points per involvement changed most by excluding negative involvements were Nick Cummins (48% higher), Mowen (47% higher) and Hooper (36% higher) so each of these players need to work on eliminating some of their negative involvements – for Mowen and Hooper that improvement would be to reduce the number of penalties conceded in the ruck whilst Cummins fell off a few clean outs.
Other involvements
This analysis was on ruck involvements but I know there will be many who say it’s unfair to look at the performance of the players based on only one element of the game.
That’s a fair point but I don’t have the time available to go into such detail for every element of the game.
What I can do is add in the number of ball carries and tackles made per 80 minutes to give a better picture of which players were doing the work as shown in the graph below.
The problem with this data is that whilst I’ve excluded negative involvements at the ruck and missed tackles I haven’t got the time to rate the effectiveness of the carries or tackles.
Wallabies – 2013 EOYT Involvements Per 80 Minutes Played
Wallabies Bench Players – 2013 EOYT Involvements Per 80 Minutes Played
Conclusions
It’s clear that the Wallabies have improved their work at the ruck during the season. In my opinion the biggest factor behind that improvement is Scott Fardy who had a great season – he’s added so much work rate and impact. I also think he’s helped Michael Hooper’s performance because he does so much ruck work freeing Hooper up a little.
Hooper has also made some positive adjustments to his game by lifting his involvement in rucks. James Horwill and Rob Simmons performed well in this area during the end of year tour. Matt Toomua’s work has been really good in the ruck and he’s led the way for the backs.
Ewen McKenzie looks like having to make some very hard selection calls next season in the forward pack and form during Super Rugby is going to be critical for player’s ambitions.
Hopefully the selection pressure brings out even better performances from players because it’s going to be trench warfare in the rucks against the All Blacks and Springboks.
The Wallabies will certainly need to work very hard, be very accurate and match the physicality of the opposition to be competitive.
