[2015 TRC] Australia v South Africa in Brisbane (18/07/2015)

[Dale91]

Less than double the ball with triple the clean breaks

 

[SomeOke]

http://www.rugby365.com/article/67456-wallaby-comeback-too-much-for-sa
This is where I got my stats SA vs Aus websites I guess, although I do find yours a little questionable because although you guys did score 3 tries I don't remember THAT many clear line breaks, in fact for large portions of the game the Aussie attack looked pretty ineffective. I mean until the 74th minute it was still 20-10 to SA, I'm not trying to take anything away from the Wallabies but to claim that the Aussies played this amazing brand of running rugby all game with the Boks just defending all game just doesn't paint the full picture of the game I watched.

 

[Dale91]

There is only 2 line breaks difference between the two stars for the wallabies haha. I feel like we definitely had more line breaks but can't be 100% sure

 

[Dale91]

Mate it was a close game
The wallabies started strong the first 20 and the last 20
The middle of the game was the Boks, with the two tries coming within 10 mins game play.

The wallabies played a good brand of rugby, kicked away less ball, yet they made more mistakes in attack. The Boks defence was also better than the wallabies

 

[goodNumber10]

Here you go match stats:

http://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/244307.html

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure where you are getting your stats, we had 3 times the line breaks

did phil Kearns compile those stats?

 

[Dale91]

Mate, every set of stats so far are completely different..

 

[goodNumber10]

Mate, every set of stats so far are completely different..

i understand that, but Espn is generally on the money - ruckinggoodstats seems to be down so can't check there... i think the Fox stats are a bit pie in the sky, not sure what they are using to compile them IBM tracker i think, but i can't belive there is 300 metres made difference between the two - something seems well askew.

 

[Dale91]

How can't you believe that? They had close to double the ball and that is less than double the metres

 

[Dale91]

They also opted to run it a lot more while the boks opted to kick

 

[goodNumber10]

because it's 300 metres, 300 metres in a game is huge... that means they must have run the length of the field 3 times, which is just unrealistic.

One of them is wrong clearly, All the other stats are similar except that one so personally i'd err on the side of the lower.

- - - Updated - - -

They also opted to run it a lot more while the boks opted to kick

the boks kicked 27, the Wallabies 23 - so 5 more kicks that's no enough to add up to 300 metres.

 

[Dale91]

They also had the ball for almost twice as long as well, making over double the passes

 

[Dale91]

I get that is probably a stretch for metres but the boks apparently got 380-400 and hardly had the ball so it isn't that unrealistic to think the wallabies had a fair bit more

 

[goodNumber10]

They also had the ball for almost twice as long as well, making over double the passes

yes, but they also had 78% territory according to your stats, so if they spent 78% of the game in the Saffer half, with 62% possesion how on earth did they run 800 metres?

they must have run back to their try line everytime they touched the ball or something?

 

[Dale91]

Haha, did you see stats for the super rugby grand final?
Highlanders ran 711m with 57% of the ball

How bout Brumbies and hurricane semi? Canes made 651m with 59% of the ball and 61% territory.

Each half the field is 50m mate. Run that 18 times and never run it in your own half and you can reach 900m.
It isn't impossible haha

 

[goodNumber10]

Haha, did you see stats for the super rugby grand final?
Highlanders ran 711m with 57% of the ball

How bout Brumbies and hurricane semi? Canes made 651m with 59% of the ball and 61% territory.

Each half the field is 50m mate. Run that 18 times and never run it in your own half and you can reach 900m.
It isn't impossible haha

it's not impossible, it's just unlikely.

I mean did you see Australia do that? take the ball from halfway to the try line in the opposition half 18 times? I need to go over the game again for G&G but i don't recall it.

I've no idea where they get their stats from, but 800+metres is just unrealistic in the international game. When Australia walloped Argentina 54-17 in 2013 they only ran 600 metres and that was end to end stuff. The Suth africa vs Nz classic in 2013 was 772 vs 503, and that was an insane coast to coast game unlike any other....

I honestly think they've messed up those run stats somehow.

 

[Dale91]

Yea as I said, I'd say 900 is a stretch. But I don't think 8 or 9 line breaks is a stretch and that they got a number of more line breaks than the Boks, which is where this all started.
SomeOke was stating that for most of the game the wallabies attack was Ineffective. If we spent more time with the ball, with better territory, more line breaks and beaten tackles, it is pretty rough to say it was ineffective for the most part.

 

[goodNumber10]

no i agree, i think the linebreak stat is about right, giteau, cooper, 2dads, folau all made line breaks, so i think 8-4 is about right.

 

[Dale91]

Haha well that was the initial point I was trying to get at and clearly failing.
SomeOke was saying they had the same amount of linebreaks

 

[SomeOke]

Those were just the stats I read, my mistake.

 

[Amobokoboko]

Good game by OZ, really enjoyed it.