All Blacks v France II
-
How long was JB at 10 for last night? Was it only for the duration of Beaudy's yellow card? Can remember him being briefly used as a 10 for the Hurricanes a few years ago. Is he seriously our next 10 option? If he could crack it as a 10 he would have to be one of the most versatile players in the backs.
-
I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at the performances of the four AB props on Saturday, seeing how the top 2 AB props (Williams and Lomax) are currently unavailable and the 4 props of the 2nd French Test (de Groot, Newell, Norris and Tosi) all got considerable minutes on the field. Focusing solely on them for the 80 minutes, I ended up with some observations, one part focusing on their collective numerical output, the other on facets which don’t really show up in (public) stats.
Some numbers
Sifting through the footage, I eventually came up with these numbers (Sidenote: some numbers will differ from the publicly available stats like those provided by RugbyPass, due to, I assume, different interpretations of what constitutes a completed and missed tackle).
Abbreviations:
MP: minutes played
SP: scrum penalties
ARI: attacking ruck involvements
DRI: defensive ruck involvements
CT: completed tackles
MT: missed tackles
C : carries
MM: metres madeWhile numbers very rarely tell the whole story, much less from such a limited data set, I think there’s a surprising amount that can be gleaned from this particular table. What stands out like a sore thumb is the breakdown work of the starting props compared to the bench props. While Newell and de Groot (to a somewhat lesser extent) were omnipresent at the attacking breakdown, moving bodies and ensuring clean ball, the bench props were much less present there.
This was, when looking at the game, clearly by design. Norris and Tosi often took up positions in the first pod outside the breakdown, ready to carry and use their big frames to bend the French line. But this is the rugby equivalent of counting your chickens before they hatch. Because what happened on the field was that, suddenly, backs like Barrett and McKenzie were needed to clean ball in the middle of the field, with rather predictable results.
Norris looking rather sheepish while the play switches in the other directionIn the picture above, for example, we can see Norris standing on the right side of the goalposts, ready for a carry close to the line. But instead, Roigard switches the play back to the open, similar to the switch play for the Jordan-try in Dunedin. But with both props playing relatively far away from the source, it’s now up to Beauden Barrett and Will Jordan to clean after the Vaa’i carry.
An ugly breakdown, which is more the norm than the exception when you have a 10 and 15 cleaning out a hooker like BourgaritWhile the sequence eventually ends with a try to Rieko Ioane in the corner, it’s clear how the composition of the bench, together with the gameplan of ball-carrying bench front-rowers, caused havoc for the AB attacking ruck. This havoc was further compounded by Codie Taylor leaving the field, who was, quite literally, everywhere during the first half. And while Taukei’aho did his best to carry a similar load, he simply does not have the engine of a Taylor.
In the end, the gameplan bore very little fruit, Norris’ and Tosi’s combined 4 carries for a total of 7 metres made barely a fundamental upgrade on de Groot’s and Newell’s combined 4 carries for 3 metres made. Norris put in a big shift on defence but the argument can be made that this defensive shift wouldn’t be necessary if the quality of the breakdown, maul and lineout hadn’t plummeted with the bench forwards coming on. If the bench plan is to bring carrying impact then the coaches need to make sure that there are enough forwards on the field who focus on securing the breakdown. Because any plan that results in your backs having to consistently provide clean ball is a plan destined to fail.
Beyond the numbers
Fletcher Newell is an excellent Test tighthead. He combines set-piece solidity with a frankly staggering work-rate. While Newell’s and de Groot’s attacking ruck involvements don’t look too dissimilar on paper (24 and 17 respectively), the nature and quality of these involvements does differ considerably. Whereas Newell is often the first arriving player at the breakdown, responsible for the actual shifting of bodies, many of de Groot’s ruck attendances were what you’d call secondary involvements, where the breakdown has already been secured and the secondary player arrives to provide further strength in numbers.I don’t want to be too harsh on de Groot, as he put in a more than solid shift around the field and in the set-piece. But when put next to Newell, it is noticeable that he doesn’t quite offer the same work-rate. In the following sequence during the 22nd minute, for example, where the ABs are trying to go through the middle of the French forward pack, the difference between de Groot’s and Newell’s appetite for repeat efforts is stark:
In this particular series of rucks, Newell physically shifts three French players, going to the floor and getting up again. De Groot, meanwhile, is mostly ruck-watching, securing the attacking ruck while mostly leaving the actual physical shifting of bodies to others.
In de Groot’s case, it might still be an issue of fitness. While he started the Test very well, being active and physical at the breakdown, as the first half wore on it did start to look as if he was starting to struggle with the pace of the game. In the 19th minute, with the French attacking in the NZ half, de Groot was slow to fold back to the openside, leaving a gap in the defensive line which was all too eagerly exploited by the French backs.
de Groot, jogging along in the background, is consistently behind the play
Taylor is already pushing de Groot to fold and take up the spot as a pillar defender but he’s slow to take up his position, forcing Holland to stay near the ruck. The latter is then unable to cover the ensuing gap between himself and Jordie Barrett, the French line-break eventually resulting in the yellow card for Beauden Barrett.
While I don’t think de Groot’s spot is immediately in danger – he still provides a lot more stability in the set-piece than someone like Norris – what the Chiefs’ loosehead does offer is superior fitness and mobility in the defensive line. If the latter is able to prove his reliability at scrum- and maul-time, then there might be some nervy times ahead for Gore’s finest.
Tl;dr: while the propping stocks are looking decent – Newell especially coming of age as a Test tighthead – there are still some teething issues with the gameplan and how they’re used off the bench, resulting in chaos at the AB attacking breakdown. Also, while de Groot still has an edge on Norris at the set-piece, the latter’s superior fitness does present a selection threat to the former.
-
@Mauss excellent post. I spoke to someone earlier this year who knows far more than me about front row forwards and is a little closer to the AB action, but he said Newell has that Owen Franks work rate in him. Big praise for a young fella still finding his feet at this level, but the attributes are there and the training ethos also. Just needs to keep working, but has been good to see his growth during this years SR and these couple of early tests.
-
When he first made the All Blacks, Fletch looked a bit lost in general play - but, he's come on in leaps and bounds.
I think someone posted a photo of some of the AB props a few weeks ago where it was notable how much smaller he is than some of the others - this article by Hinton makes the point - he's giving away a good 10kgs to most and closer to 20kgs to Tamaiti.
Cut from the mould of Owen Franks and Steve McDowall - very strong, but must also be technically excellent in the scrum.
We're in a pretty good place for props, I think.
-
Pretty good place for locks as well with S. Barrett, PT, Holland, Vaa'i, Darry, Lord and Beehre (though the latter is still untested). Ah Kuoi might be not big enough for the international scene. His future may lay at 6 where the Chiefs already have Finau, Parker and Jacobson.
-
@Mauss Good post mate. On the props that came on standing off rucks, was that because the French were a bit worn out and weren't hitting rucks (did look a bit like that at game),they seemed to be standing off. Then perhaps the props coming on are used to either carry, or where you point out Norris standing one side and play going the other way, he was attracting defence?
Not sure that is case, but regardless I think it perhaps shows why we got starters and subs and how we use them.
Thanks for putting up that post. -
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France II:
Surely a piss take?
This fits considering the French reportedly left the field early and didn't stick around for the Dave Gallagher trophy presentation.
-
-
What did we make of Barretts yellow card?
Seems to have been lost in the ether after a convincing win.
Still think we are getting rode roughshod by refs and we never say anything about it.
Scott Hansens media scrum in the build up to this test confirmed as much.
We dont play "the game" at all.
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks v France II:
@cgrant At least they are trying out a centre (Proctor) and a winger (Ioane). They've also had a crack at doing something about the loosie balance - so kudos for all of that.
But 10 is a problem they're not even trying to solve.We need the two incumbents to pick up slight knocks.
Beaudy has been on a pedestal for a long time and we need injury to do what the coaches will not.
-
-
@Jet said in All Blacks v France II:
@sparky said in All Blacks v France II:
@Jet Clear YC. Refs are consistent on that one. Beauden Barrett should have known better.
Wasnt it forward in the buildup?
Maybe, but who cares? Forward passes and knock-ons get missed in just about every game. That's not some conspiracy, it's just a coincidence. What he did deserved a yellow card - because blocking passes discourages attacking rugby - and it is one of the more consistent card rulings out there.
-
@reprobate Beauden Barrett must have got a YC for that, across his career for the Hurricanes, the Blues and the All Blacks, at least half a dozen times. I really wish he'd stop doing it.
-
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France II:
In the end, the gameplan bore very little fruit, Norris’ and Tosi’s combined 4 carries for a total of 7 metres made barely a fundamental upgrade on de Groot’s and Newell’s combined 4 carries for 3 metres made. Norris put in a big shift on defence but the argument can be made that this defensive shift wouldn’t be necessary if the quality of the breakdown, maul and lineout hadn’t plummeted with the bench forwards coming on. If the bench plan is to bring carrying impact then the coaches need to make sure that there are enough forwards on the field who focus on securing the breakdown. Because any plan that results in your backs having to consistently provide clean ball is a plan destined to fail.
I think this hits the nail on the head to explain the decline in the AB's attacking structure in the second half. Thank you for the insight.
This puts the AB's in a conumdrum going forward as per the weekend for example there's really no-one on the bench with a fantastic reputation of shifting bodies at the ruck. Norris, Tosi and Samisoni are ball carriers, Finau plays wide and Kirifi is more of a scavenger at the breakdown.
It begs the question when the bench comes on who's job is it to clear bodes at the ruck? It would appear no-one and everyone...
-
@Windows97 said in All Blacks v France II:
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France II:
In the end, the gameplan bore very little fruit, Norris’ and Tosi’s combined 4 carries for a total of 7 metres made barely a fundamental upgrade on de Groot’s and Newell’s combined 4 carries for 3 metres made. Norris put in a big shift on defence but the argument can be made that this defensive shift wouldn’t be necessary if the quality of the breakdown, maul and lineout hadn’t plummeted with the bench forwards coming on. If the bench plan is to bring carrying impact then the coaches need to make sure that there are enough forwards on the field who focus on securing the breakdown. Because any plan that results in your backs having to consistently provide clean ball is a plan destined to fail.
I think this hits the nail on the head to explain the decline in the AB's attacking structure in the second half. Thank you for the insight.
This puts the AB's in a conumdrum going forward as per the weekend for example there's really no-one on the bench with a fantastic reputation of shifting bodies at the ruck. Norris, Tosi and Samisoni are ball carriers, Finau plays wide and Kirifi is more of a scavenger at the breakdown.
It begs the question when the bench comes on who's job is it to clear bodes at the ruck? It would appear no-one and everyone...
This is the problem with most people's idea of the 'impact player'. Stack your bench with ball runners, and you won't actually have the ball enough for them to do anything.
It's one of the reasons I'd look at starting Samisoni and using Taylor for the 2nd half. Also one running prop and one cleaning prop per half, same with the loosies... -
@Mauss said in All Blacks v France II:
Nice post Mauss.
One thing to consider is we dominated possession in the first half while the French had more of the possession in the 2nd half. They had 68% in the last 10 minutes. We were unable to win turnovers off them. Given that context there is not as many attacking rucks for the props to attend.
Perhaps a better balance would be achieved by starting Norris with Newell and letting De Groot empty the tank for the last 20 minutes?
As you mentioned the sample data is not high from one game. During the Super Season Newell is obviously the hardest worker of the All Blacks props when it comes to rucks.
Using The Analyst stats for the SRP season...
Total Rucks Per 80 Minutes
31.23 Fletcher Newell
30.37 Tyrel Lomax
28.66 Ollie Norris
27.26 Tamaiti Williams
27.24 Pasilio Tosi
24.14 Ethan de GrootNorris, Williams and Tosi hit a similar amount of rucks however it should be noted that Newell averages the most even though he is a starting prop and he puts in some big minutes.
Attacking Ruck Effectiveness
90.7 Ollie Norris
85.8 Pasilio Tosi
81.3 Fletcher Newell
80.0 Tyrel Lomax
73.4 Tamaiti Williams
70.6 Ethan de GrootDefensive Ruck Effectiveness
18.2 Pasilio Tosi
11.9 Tamaiti Williams
8.8 Ollie Norris
6.1 Tyrel Lomax
5.6 Fletcher Newell
4.3 Ethan de GrootThese season stats confirm your analysis about De Groot's effectiveness. While Tosi, and Norris average less ruck involvements they are more effective than the others. During the Hurricanes Brumbies qualifying final it was noticeable how much more effective Tosi was at the breakdown when he came on compared to Lomax.
Breakdown Steals Per 80 Minutes
0.36 Ollie Norris
0.33 Tamaiti Williams
0.19 Pasilio Tosi
0.16 Tyrel Lomax
0.1 Fletcher Newell
0.0 Ethan de Groot
The Post
