Rugby Championship 2013 - IRB Data

Some info from the IRB:

South Africa won four of their six matches, losing twice to New Zealand

1. They had the highest proportion of possession
2. They were the most successful at place kicks
3. They were the most successful at winning possession at opponents ruck/mauls
4. They were the least likely to kick contestable restarts
5. They were the most successful at retaining lineout possession
6. They were the most successful at retaining scrum possession, winning all their own put-ins
   
7. They were also the most successful in winning opposition scrum possession
   
8. They were least successful at regaining contestable 50m restarts
9. Together with Australia, they were most likely to tap kick penalties and free kicks
10. They were awarded the highest proportion of penalty/free kicks

Some facts about the tournament as a whole.

1. 68% of tries were scored by backs, 30% by forwards and there was one penalty try
2. 44% of tries originated from lineout possession - only 8% originated from scrum possession
3. 33% of tries started from inside the scoring team’s own half
4. 73% of tries were preceded by three or fewer phases and 45% of tries by three or fewer passes

In most statistical categories we are almost identical to New Zealand. Also, note that the 33% of tries scored inside the teams own half were almost all from turnovers because of the opposition attacking too many phases from deep themselves. Interesting to note that one I think, it ties into what I was saying in my last thread.

 Two important stats
1. Its 2014 not 2013
2. Nz wan SA Lost

The important thing is analyzing trends and there is alot to be learned. But I see nobody wants to learn so we just end up with the same garbage putted around ad nauseum. Also this data refutes alot of the nonsense some people post. So its actually very relevant to right now and what we should be expecting this year.

 
3ku1

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 913 RE: Rugby Championship 2013 - IRB Data
July 31, 2014, 11:14:09  Two important stats
1. Its 2014 not 2013
2. Nz wan SA Lost

Hell. You are right. Could you be so kind and provide us with the latest Rugby Championship stats?

 Build into those stats the disgraceful Bissie yellow then red which cost us the game in nz and messed up our chances at Ellis Park as Moz and many comentators have acknowledged. A RAWs winRoman cost us the RC. End of story.

 Gonzo thanks for the stats as they show clearly the Boks superiority.

 Gonzo
Thanks for the info.  I think that where things did go wrong for us were in the defense category - and in some cases problems in strategic execution .    
I really have no problem in the game plan as such - I have a problem with ability of some of the player to play a constructive part and their skill sets.   The game plan should be refined to reduce ball possession losses and to ensure that we have active support from our loosies in the relevant regard.
Over the last two years we lost games because of deficiencies in ball protection and recovery- a function where our loosies has to play an active role.   Vermeulen and Louw did their part - Alberts never did.   So we gets beaten by the NZ and Aussie 3 -somes - while we depend on two loosies and our hooker for that purpose.  We desperately need to get to parity with our loosie combination - we are at present not on par with NZ and Australia.  Whenever we lost games against Australia and New Zealand over the past two years it was because the backrows of the said two teams over- shadowed our back rows.
Unlike other members I think there are a fairly limited number of personnel changes  to be made in the team to ensure that the players all have the skill set and abilities to perform on test level.                  .     

 You have to take into account the Ellis park test, where the Bok's ditched their usual gameplan and tried running the ball too much.

Gonzo: great stats thanks for that.
3ku1: thanks for providing the reality check for us all. 
Glad the stats help distract the discussion away from the usual "debate". Of course a key fact that influences the stats is the quality of the opposition. It is easy to run up good number against weaker opposition. Nevertheless, these stats should stem the tide of despair some Bok posters exhibit about their team.
Still cannot see the RAW stats in ESPN but maybe they are only in the imagination of our more creative members

 No doubt the springboks had an outstanding season last year but the word that better define their whole season is :

SECOND

They did many things right, they even ran the ball and get nice tries, they demolished some opposite teams, but they weren't able to beat the AB

 "Build into those stats the disgraceful Bissie yellow then red which cost us the game in nz and messed up our chances at Ellis Park as Moz and many comentators have acknowledged. A RAWs winRoman cost us the RC. End of story."

so pathetic

 Hi there JW. I like your new avatar! Trust ED is not responsible. 
Yes quite rugby cheaser! If we had won in nz like we should have but for a RAW we would certainly have won at Ellis Park. 

 if a national team is not able to overcome a simple yellow card, they deserve to be SECOND

Abasquefan : yes second place was well deserved , no one should try to take that away from the Boks 

 Cool....cool. Bring on 2014

Hi Beeno, that Daffy character seems to pop up everywhere. I guess we just have to accept him.
DA obviously can't figure out how to add an avatar to his profile or else he would have done so already.  

 Basque, there are two things that I don't like. Finding excuses and blaming the ref. In the Bismarck red card case, I have always said that Bismarck was as guilty for getting red-carded as Poite was for the stupid decision of Bismarck's first yellow card. Having said that, we cannot loose sight of the effects that the first yellow card had.

Ou Maaikie will probably not like it, but at the time of the first scrum after the yellow card, Alberts was doing a great job, both in attack and defence. The moment that the scrum came, we lost him to get a hooker on. So we actually lost two vital players through that yellow card. Then Bismarck had the brainfart with his move on Messam and Poite was in a catch 22. He had to send him off and it was tickets from there on because, once again, Alberts had to be sacrificed to bring Strauss on. Because of the Poite mistake, SA were without the "guilty" player and one of there key loose forwards for more than half the game. That is the reality and that changed the entire competition right there.

SA were well on there way to at least get a bonus point, if not win the game in Auckland, and that would totally have changed our approach for the Ellis Park test. It changed it to a game where we had two choices. Go for the a win and four tries or go for a win and four tries. Funny, but true. Anything less than a win and four tries would have had the same effect. Had we chosen to play safe and try and secure the game first before going for the tries, chances are that we could well have won that test but there was no guarantee that it would go with four tries and no bonus point for the All Blacks.

That is why I prefer the French system of bonus poin ts. In France, you only get a try bonus point if you score three tries more than the opposition. They have changed it slightly for the new season. They also have a "loosing bonus point" now but the try bonus point remains the same.

 Lol Beeno you are something else. SA did not lose the RC because Bismark went off (he deserved it, it was a shocking tackle, don't care what anyone says it was very late deserved the red). I know you like to think SA are the best team in the world, and its only The Top to Bottom of SA Rugby, and if that sorts out SA well have world domination. But have you even considered you don't have the player base to compete with NZ? Sure you have tons of talent, but NZ depth is second to none I said it. It seems to me your always harping on about this ref and that kiwi ref, yet you never seem to take responsibility for the performance of your own teams, its always someone elses the fault. The ref, the weather, a yellow card derailed SA RC campaign and the only reason they lost! LOL that has to be the worst one, just an observation. SA lost againgst NZ for the same reason why they have been loosing the past three years, they haven't been good enough, NZ currently is the surpeior team simple as that.

 Discarding Argentina for a moment, the Springboks were also the second most likely team to loose to the All Blacks. This year they have hit top spot.

The two tests against NZ were  very close. And I suspect this year they will be close as well. After Saturday we will have a better sense of whether Oz has joined the party.
Nice post Gonzo. 

 " if a national team is not able to overcome a simple yellow card, they deserve to be SECOND -opines ab ass. Well get it right ab ass. There was a yellow and then a red AS WEll. So bad was the yellow card call that Roman was censured for it. Dan carter himselff said it was a legitimate tackle. Even Bissies second offence was dubious. It was a disgraceful display by a ab ref in pocket oak. When you are so abviously biased how can one trust the marginal calls.
Wake up 3 IQ your cred is suffering badly here.
As Moz has said the games were close. Hence playing 14 men for some 30 minutes (was it) was a match decider. Even ou cerudunce windpomp acknowledges (as did many jounalists) this threw out the Boks plan for Ellis Park where left to play their normal game the Boks would undoubtedly have won.Winning these two tests would have ment a RC win. You getting the logoc 3 IQ?Gonzo's stats show just how superior the Boks were.Add in the debacle in goal kicking at Dunedin and it is clear the Boks were the better side in 3 of the last 4 tests. FACTPoor Ireland must also lament being robbed of a victory last year. France will rue the fact the abs escaped with a win. Its quite extraordinary how many wins the abs burgled when being outplayed.
This year already England B looked the better side and lost two tests via RAWs. This has got to be stopped. SARFU needs to take the strongest possible action if we are diddled yet again. Other countries must follow suite. Fair Go mate. Away with the kiwi RAWs system!!!!!!!!!

For our new posters, firstly welcome & now let me explain Beeno's use of FACT it stands for:
Fictitious Analysis Contrary to Truth (FACT)
Counter intuitive but this twisted reverse logic is common to several posters on this site. I will give an explanation of the acronym STATS at a later date

 To all new posters - take no note of this certifiable oak! HahahahhahahahaHe comes here as part of his rehab programme!

 Ceradunce
Alberts doing a great job?   He carried the ball 6 times  - making an average gain of 2 meters and made 4 tackles.  A great job - not a chance.   He did not miss any tackles and for  Alberts that is a huge achievement.    He was not doing anything like a grea job - the normal low work rate being in evidence again.     
The rel bugger-ups that game was made by Mornetjie - so lets leave it at that.  

 @3ku1. When you say: " Lol Beeno you are something else. SA did not lose the RC because Bismark went off (he deserved it, it was a shocking tackle, don't care what anyone says it was very late deserved the red)." ................... I have to assume that you are talking about his tackle on Carter, because his second yellow card was not for a tackle. Is that correct?

@Ou Maaikie. Memory problems again? Are you sure you do not want to check and make sure you haven't missed something before you continue on Alberts in that particular game?

 Ceradyne
That is exactly what I did - I checked the stats and that was what really happened.   Alberts rarely  make a good ball carry  - and if he does make 3 or more meters in a carry it is a miracle.   He is normally tackled by the first defender and his famous strong ball carries is a nmyth   He is clumsy and lack ball handling skills.    And then there is the issue of ball protection and recovery - where his role is ZERO as well.   Once he meets the full requirements of a loosie - it can be said that he has had a good game - but that has not happened during the past two years - so he remains a  low work rate passenger.       

 The difference btwin the boks and the AB, at least last year, was that while the boks weren't capable of overcome a yellow card (provoking a well deserved red card and losing the edge to win the match), the AB were shown 2 yellows at Ellis Park and were capable of winning.
They were not only capable of winning after the 2 yellows but they also carried out their victory and sealed it when they were 14, one man down, through an extraordinary try by the best player in the world, Read.

This is why the All Blacks are the nº1 and the boks are SECOND

 ab ass you again miss the pivotal point. Lets explain it to you this way. If the wee abs were required by circumstances to play a say power game against the Boks could they possibly win. Of course not.Are you getting a glimer ab ass?
If you dont see the point I think by the end of 2015 you will be well aware of the points being made and needing much consolation. 

 The pivotal point?
it will be the pivotal point of your lack of sense.

So now the reason why the boks deserve to be the nº1 instead the AB is because they were forced to play a game they are not used to,......  and weren't capable of doing it. Amazing
If they are capable of playing only one gameplan, they deserve to be SECOND

By the way, if the AB were forced to play a "power game" they would still win.
Haven't you seen how the AB stopped the boks' rolling maul at Ellis Park and the poms' in the last June tests? they stopped both teams' rolling mauls and made their packs go backwards.
Didn't you notice how easy the saders got a try through a rolling maul last saturday against the sharks?

 Ou CleverTrevor misses the boat again. You should have taken the opportunity and made sure that you have covered everything. You cannot say that I didn't give you the chance.

Yes, you did check the stats and yes, I do agree that Alberts only ".....carried the ball 6 times  - making an average gain of 2 meters and made 4 tackles.....". It is also true that  the rest of the loose forwards did more statistically.

Now just to give you another few seconds to think about the above, let's return to his "lack of meters gained". You seem to completely ignore the fact that he normally and particularly in this game took a few defenders with him in those short drives. You always, conveniently ignore the number of defenders that Alberts remove from the game. Of course, if you have three guys jumping on you to prevent you from breaking loose, you will only make a meter or two but you will have taken out those three defenders. I will not even try to explain the importance of that to you because you simply do not like to hear that.

Now to the numbers of ball carries, etc. As I said, the rest of the loose forward did have more activities than Alberts but (are you sure you are ready for this?) .... here is the punchline and that is also available in the stats:

19

Alberts - sub off
Strauss - sub on
26

Alberts - sub on
Strauss - sub off
Time off the field - 7 minutes

41

BW du Plessis - red card 44

Alberts - sub off
That was from minute 44 to minute 80 of the game. A total of 36 minutes.

The way I see it, Alberst was on the field for only 37 minutes of the game. (80 minutes minus (7 minutes + 36 minutes)= 37 minutes).

How long did F Louw have to make his 5 runs for 7 meters (which, by your way of arguing should be kakker than Alberts'), 9 tackles with 2 misses? Let me help you. It was 74 minutes. Exactly twice as long as Alberts. Louw should have made 18 tackles, gained 14 meters in 10 runs to equal Alberts.

Let's move on to Duane Vermeulen. Duane Vermeulen was on the field for the entire 80 minutes. More than double the time Vermeulen was on. By using the same logic as for Louw, Vermeulen should have made at least 18 runs and gained 58 meters and made 14  tackles. He made half of that.

I know that it is not absolutely accurate to just go and half Louw's and Vermeulen's data or double that of Alberts to get a comparison but it is the only way to get some perspective.

Of course the above puts another spin on Baque's remark: "... if a national team is not able to overcome a simple yellow card....". You see my friend, it was anything but "a simple yellow card". Once again, I am not saying that SA would or should have won that game.

 

ABasquefan

Status: Squad member
Posts: 307 RE: Rugby Championship 2013 - IRB Data
August 01, 2014, 11:13:47  The difference btwin the boks and the AB, at least last year, was that while the boks weren't capable of overcome a yellow card (provoking a well deserved red card and losing the edge to win the match), the AB were shown 2 yellows at Ellis Park and were capable of winning.
They were not only capable of winning after the 2 yellows but they also carried out their victory and sealed it when they were 14, one man down, through an extraordinary try by the best player in the world, Read.

This is why the All Blacks are the nº1 and the boks are SECOND

Are you smoking something or are you just trolling. Let me say this again. I am not making excuses and I am not saying that we would have won that test. In fact, I was the first South African on here to say that the red card was Bismarck's own fault. Whether it was deserved is debatable. Remember that Bismarck did not get a red card for the charge against Messam. It was a yellow card. The red card was because it was his second yellow card. So, your idea that he deserved the red card is pure bullshit. Have you not seen (or perhaps ignored?) the fact that the ref first showed him a yellow card and then a red?

You cannot really compare the two yellow cards at Ellis Park and the Auckland tests. It is simple. The two yellow cards landed the All Blacks with 14 man for 20 minutes. In the case of SA it was for 43 minutes. Double the time. In the Auckland Park test, it also impacted on one of the flanks as well for more than half the game. In the Ellis Park test, it only impacted on one of your loose forwards when Franks was carded 18 minutes from full time.

In addition you cannot deny that the Auckland test has changed SA's entire approach to the Ellis Park test. As I said, SA had no choice nut to go flat out to score tries. Anything else would have been stupid. There is no way that any team would, in those circumstances, would have taken the safe approach by focussing on winning alone. I can tell you with a lot of confidence that had HM decided not to go for the tries and just to win the game, there would have been a hell of a lot of South Africans who would have been on his case, arguing that the win is worth shit without the the try bonus point in that case. There are a couple of those on here.

 Ceradyne
I am saying that Alberts is not an effective loosie and that remains a fact.   He had a few ball carries - but to state that it takes two or more tacklers to bring him down is stretching it beyond recognition.    It sometimes happen - but that is very very rare.  He in fact broke 2 tackles - which could imply that in th cas of 2 of the carries i t tiik more than one player to bring him down.   
What is more important is what role did he play as to the comprehensive loose forward play - like ball protection and recovery - and the answer is ZERO.   That is what makes him a flop as a loosie.   At the best of times Alberts is an average loosie - normally he is sub-par.   He may have been average in the Eden Park test - in the Ellis Park test he was a flop.    He was not "doing a great job"   as alleged by you - he was doing ab average job - nothing more - and from a comprehensive point of v iew his serious negatives persisted.
     

 The only FACT around here is the fact that you are talking kak.............. again. I have not said anything about Alberts in the Ellis Park test, poepol. It was all about what happened in Auckland. Once again, you have totally lost sight of what is under discussion. You are only focussed on finding a way of running down your little pet that you have no idea of where you are finding yourself in this conversation.

Then maybe you do know and are trying your luck and hoping that your balls-up about Alberts in the Auckland test would somehow "go away".

The only mention that I made about Ellis Park was to indicate to our "wise" friend, Basque, that you cannot compare the two situations as far as the yellow/red cards are concerned. Now get back to scratching your arse to try and find some new "damning" evidence.

  @ceradyne,
Excuse me??????????

First of all, I smoke whenever I want to. WTF do you have to say about it?

Secondly, I post what you are putting into a frame to everybody, not only to you. When I want to adress to you I'll put your name with an @ before like in this post above, understood?

where the hell can you read in your f*cking frame that I said that you are "making excuses" and "saying that we would have won that test"? where? I challenge you to mark it.

I know perfectly well that Bismark was shown a second yellow card which means a red one. I just resume it in a "red card" for not having to write all
And this second yellow card and the consequent red was only Bismark's fault. Bismark perfectly knew that another serious infringement was automatically a red card (consequence of the second yellow card, do you like more ths way?) so it was only his fault to hit Messam in his throat with his elbow, only his fault.

Yes, I'm comparing the yellow cards shown at Ellis Park and those showned at Eden park. You are implying that compare means that they are the same (you can perfectly compare two things and conclude they are very different) and that's what I didn't do. I compared both but I didn't say they are exactly the same.
i don't give a shit if they are exactly the same or not. Let say it in another way, each team has to face their adversities, the boks being one man down for 43 minutes and the AB being one man down for 20. The boks clearly failed in overcoming their adversities while the AB not only overcame them but they also did it in style with and otstanding team-try finished by Read sealing a well deserved win.

If a team is not capable of overcoming a yellow card and is not capable of changing their "entire approach to the Ellis Park test" (which means that they only know to play ONE gameplan and when they cannot apply it they are lost ), they deserve to be SECOND

 The Basking Shark got more than he bargained for. Look here BasketCase, Ceradyne just handed your ass paddled like a biatch, I dont think I can see anymore, Its just too painful to watch!