Stormers v Bulls [Autopsy]

US

Username

Pro1,098 posts

US

UsernamePro1,098 posts

02 Apr 2012, 16:02

#1

02 Apr 2012, 16:02#1

Pos T/A Pts K/P/R MR CB DB OL TO Tack LO Pen Y/R FB Pietersen 0/0 12 5/2/6 37 0 1 0 0 2/0 0/0 0 0/0 W Aplon 0/0 0 2/2/5 32 1 0 1 0 4/1 0/0 1 0/0 C de Jongh 0/0 0 1/2/10 39 1 3 1 0 5/2 0/0 0 0/0 C de Villiers 0/0 0 0/8/9 26 0 2 1 1 6/0 0/0 0 0/0 W Habana 0/0 0 2/2/4 38 0 1 1 1 3/0 0/0 1 0/0 FH Grant 0/0 3 5/28/6 10 0 0 1 1 4/4 0/0 0 0/0 SH Duvenage 0/0 0 6/65/2 10 0 0 0 0 5/0 0/0 0 0/0 P Kitshoff 0/0 0 0/0/2 0 0 0 0 0 6/0 0/0 2 0/0 H Liebenberg 1/0 5 0/4/9 2 0 0 1 1 3/0 0/0 1 0/0 P Harris 0/0 0 0/0/2 0 0 0 0 0 4/0 0/0 0 0/0 L Etzebeth 0/0 0 0/0/9 21 0 0 0 1 6/1 2/0 0 0/0 L Bekker 0/0 0 0/4/4 8 0 0 1 0 6/1 3/0 1 0/0 F Kolisi 0/0 0 0/0/7 34 1 1 0 0 6/0 0/0 1 0/0 F Elstadt 0/0 0 0/1/3 0 0 1 0 2 8/0 1/0 1 0/0 N8 Vermeulen 0/0 0 0/1/6 26 0 1 0 0 10/0 3/0 0 0/0 (R) Fourie 0/0 0 0/0/2 0 0 0 0 0 2/0 0/0 0 0/0 (R) Malherbe 0/0 0 0/0/1 0 0 0 0 0 3/1 0/0 0 0/0 (R) Koster 0/0 0 0/1/6 30 0 0 0 0 4/0 0/0 1 0/0 (R) Schreuder 0/0 0 1/5/0 0 0 0 0 0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0 (R) van den Heever 0/0 0 0/0/1 0 0 0 0 0 0/0 0/0 0 0/0

Pos T/A Pts K/P/R MR CB DB OL TO Tack LO Pen Y/R FB Kirchner 0/1 0 3/0/6 14 0 0 0 2 0/0 0/0 1 0/0 W Ndungane 0/0 0 0/0/1 0 0 0 0 1 3/1 0/0 0 0/0 C Sadie 0/0 0 0/1/2 5 0 0 1 0 4/1 0/0 1 0/0 C Olivier 1/0 5 1/3/5 17 1 0 0 2 7/0 0/0 0 0/0 W Basson 1/0 5 0/1/3 8 0 1 0 0 4/0 0/0 1 0/0 FH Steyn 0/0 7 10/12/4 33 0 0 0 3 10/1 0/0 0 0/0 SH Hougaard 0/0 0 6/31/10 41 1 3 2 4 7/1 0/0 0 0/0 P Greyling 0/0 0 0/0/8 2 0 0 0 1 5/0 1/0 4 0/0 H Ralepelle 0/0 0 0/0/5 3 0 0 1 0 5/1 0/0 0 0/0 P W Kruger 0/0 0 0/0/2 0 0 0 0 0 3/1 0/0 0 0/0 L van der Merwe 0/0 0 0/1/4 8 0 0 1 0 6/2 1/0 2 1/0 L PJJ Kruger 0/1 0 0/2/2 4 0 0 0 0 11/0 5/0 3 0/0 F Stander 0/0 0 0/0/6 20 0 2 0 0 11/0 0/0 2 0/0 F Potgieter 0/0 0 0/0/3 0 0 0 0 0 10/0 0/0 0 0/0 N8 Spies 0/0 0 0/0/8 33 0 1 0 0 6/1 2/0 0 0/0 (R) Kirsten 0/0 0 0/0/1 16 1 2 0 0 2/0 0/0 0 0/0 (R) Botha 0/0 0 0/0/2 1 0 0 0 2 5/0 1/0 0 0/0 (R) Vermaak 0/0 0 1/16/1 2 0 0 0 0 2/0 0/0 0 0/0 (R) Engelbrecht 0/0 0 0/1/1 3 0 1 0 0 1/1 0/0 0 0/0

Interesting to note that de Jongh clearly outplayed Sadie! Week in and week out he performs very well ball in hand. He is our leading outside centre, definite Bok material. Chiliboy outclassed Liebenberg; factor in Chiliboy's four crucial turnovers into that. Habana was more prominent than Basson. I think's a simple conclusion in the end, the Bull's were tactically not there and execution was not what it needed to be. The Stormer's defence didn't allow the Bull's to bring their backs into the game. It reminded me of the Bok's away test to New Zealand in 2006, except they held on.

HA

hakwa

Pro4,146 posts

HA

hakwaPro4,146 posts

02 Apr 2012, 16:47

#2

02 Apr 2012, 16:47#2

wow, Aristocrat, you must have pretty good software to get this kind of statistics!

US

Username

Pro1,098 posts

US

UsernamePro1,098 posts

02 Apr 2012, 17:05

#3

02 Apr 2012, 17:05#3

They aren't collected by me. There are several companies which are contracted to collect data for clients. What I usually do is collect the stats and go through certain games and assess the significance of each attribute. For instance, a missed tackle; a player might miss a couple of tackles, but he might be chasing every opportunity to make a tackle. In the Tri Nations last year Morne missed two tackles. He was castigated, whilst Lambie was praised. I then posted a video showing that Lambie backed away from attackers, whilst Morne threw himself at everything. One of those missed tackles was the result of Pienaar not marking his man which left Australia with a two-on-one, Morne slipped the tackle but went for the right man. So context is very important. Of course, certain things are not as much up for debate. A pass is a pass, but the tackle is one which requires the most assessment; Which is why I try to encourage a discussion on the stats rather than a simple, "You are wrong and an idiot" mud-slinging contest. But certainly, the stats do generally reflect the reality of a players peformance, or team (as in tackles again, it can often reflect on a pooly executed defensive system).

MO

Mozart

Captain49,914 posts

MO

MozartCaptain49,914 posts

02 Apr 2012, 17:26

#4

02 Apr 2012, 17:26#4

Aristo I have this link for tests.....could you be so kind and provide the S15 address. By the way are you sure it's turnovers made as opposed to turnovers ceded?

US

Username

Pro1,098 posts

US

UsernamePro1,098 posts

02 Apr 2012, 17:45

#5

02 Apr 2012, 17:45#5

From scrum.com it's turnovers conceded.

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2012/rugby/series/144545.html?template=results

MO

Mozart

Captain49,914 posts

MO

MozartCaptain49,914 posts

02 Apr 2012, 18:30

#6

02 Apr 2012, 18:30#6

Thanks Aristo......so you think when Kirchner has two turnovers next to his name, it means he caused possession to be lost to his opponents twice in the game? Looking on the site I still can't find a definitive definition, but this seems consistent with events on the field. If true though, they gather no stats on fetcher effectiveness.

EK

Ek

Pro1,464 posts

EK

EkPro1,464 posts

02 Apr 2012, 18:35

#7

02 Apr 2012, 18:35#7

So if that is true then Morne Teyn and Hougaard gave the opponents 3 and 4 balls respectively. Not a very good omen if we take bok consideration in mind.

US

Username

Pro1,098 posts

US

UsernamePro1,098 posts

02 Apr 2012, 18:42

#8

02 Apr 2012, 18:42#8

True Moz, the only draw back to scrum.com. That said, it does tell you about the team effort at the breakdown and collisions. As we can see from this, The Stormers overwhelmed the Bull's backline. They also didn't allow for many offloads; quite often one went high and the other low. They were able to contest the ball too often well before the tackled player went to ground.

Ek, the Bull's halfbacks were the most effective. They unfortunately were ganged up on with little protection or support.

EK

Ek

Pro1,464 posts

EK

EkPro1,464 posts

02 Apr 2012, 18:46

#9

02 Apr 2012, 18:46#9

ah again context and support so you would lay the blame for that then on the loosies not supporting in contact?

US

Username

Pro1,098 posts

US

UsernamePro1,098 posts

02 Apr 2012, 20:13

#10

02 Apr 2012, 20:13#10

I definitely feel the Bulls were outplayed in the loosie department. Unlike the unified approach that they showed when destroying the Cheetahs they functioned more individually. I cannot understand what the plan was before the outset, but personally would have been very keen on this issue in the build-up were I Ludeke. In the end the tables were turned on them.

More from Rugby

More news