We look at the key statistics from yesterday’s game and discuss some of the more telling moments of the match. Statistics are courtesy of Vodacom, opinion is this writer’s own. Where at all possible, blame will be placed squarely at the feet of non-WP players and / or the match officials, pitch conditions and Jan van Riebeeck.
They say you get lies, damn lies and statistics and when you look at the comparisons, it would appear to be a very close game, and indeed it was, with the All Blacks making decisive scoring breaks in injury time in the 1st half as well as the last 10 minutes of the game to sneak the victory. They clearly have higher fitness levels than the Springboks, both physically and mentally and managed to out last as well as out think the Springboks, the try scored by Richie McCaw being a prime example of excellent tactical superiority.
The statistic that is most interesting is the breakdown of meters run. When you analyze which positions made the most meters the following is apparent:
In the forwards the All Blacks loose forwards are the primary ball carriers, where the main ball carriers for the Springboks were the locks.
In the backline the Springboks used the 9-10-12-13 combos the most, making most of the meters through the midfield, with 192 meters made against 96 metres for the All Blacks. Jesse Kriel was the standout with a total of 76 meters gained.
The All Blacks by contrast, gained 222 meters through the wings against 56 metres by the Springboks.
Defensively both teams were fairly solid, with the most missed tackles also in midfield, for SA Pollard missed 3, De Allende 2 and Kriel 4, while for NZ Aaron Smith missed 3, Sopoaga missed 4 and Nonu missed 4.
Notable clean breaks by South Africa had Kriel and De Allende both on 2 each, with Willie Le Roux on 4. Conrad Smith top scored with 3 for the All Blacks.
Statistics:
Springboks |
|
All Blacks |
| 20 | Scores | 27 |
| 2 | Tries | 3 |
| 2 | Try assists | 3 |
| 11 | Penalties conceded | 13 |
| 0 | Yellow Cards | 1 |
| 2 | Penalty Goals | 2 |
| 1 | Missed penalties | 2 |
| 20 | Kicks from hand | 19 |
| 436 | Meters Run | 477 |
| 10 | Clean breaks | 7 |
| 125 | Carries | 108 |
| 28 | Defenders beaten | 19 |
| 158 | Passes | 141 |
| 7 | Offloads | 10 |
| 109 | Tackles | 124 |
| 19 | Missed Tackles | 28 |
| 17 | Knock ons | 13 |
| 6 | Turnovers won | 7 |
| 17 | Handling errors | 13 |
| 12 | Lineouts won on own throw | 10 |
| 18 | Loose balls collected | 11 |
| 15 | Kicks caught | 19 |
| 7 | Scrums won | 10 |
| 0 | Scrums lost | 0 |
| 52% | Possession | 48% |
| 51% | Territory | 49% |
Stormersboy,
Thanks for the article… I cleaned the Table of Stats up a bit, removing some empty line spaces and empty columns and added some Font formatting to the table.
What is the difference between knock-ons and handling errors?
nortie wrote:
There doesnt seem to be according to the table above, but I suppose there could be a handling error, such as a ball lost backwards that would not be a knock on?
Waddayouthink?
@ grootblousmile:
Thanks, I actually looked for you on skype for some help, I needed someone who spoke “nerd”….
😆 😆 😆
4 @ Stormersboy:
Sorry, I keep my Skype off over weekends, otherwise I would never get rest!
You’ve got my Cell No, use it… wisely!
Very little between these two teams, how many more years will this fixture be played at Ellis park I would have thought the other SA unions would be getting a little testy and be wanting a piece of the action which would suit us as it’s an I credibility difficult place to play and win.
Stormersboy wrote:
I think you are right…I also don’t see something like unforced errors, so I guess when a player passes and misses his intended target and the ball goes directly into touch or is intercepted it’s also probably a handling error?
@ nortie:
Yes that makes sense. I suppose it’s just a coincidence then that the numbers are the same this time around.
6 @ NZINCHINA:
It’s all money based.
Provinces have to “bid” in advance to host tests, with minimum amounts applicable dependant on who the opposition is.
When I was still involved at the Lions (until 2012) the amounts bid had to be paid immediately on the awarding of the test to the union, sometimes 2 years in advance.
Hence the smaller unions just couldn’t cover the cash flow. On the test day, the profits go to the union, with a percentage to SARU.
That system has changed in the last 2 years, with the up front payment now not being applicable, but if memory seves me correctly, SARU taking a slightly higer percentage of the gate.
There are of course some isolated incidents where it is totally different. For example whenever the Springboks play at FNB Satdium on the outskirts of Johannesburg.
All of the profits go to SARU, who then distribute it as they see fit. The last game v NZ there had all of the profits being distributed between the minor provinces, which caused the Lions’ President, Kevin de Klerk to have a tantrum, as he felt that the “Lions share” should have gone to his province as the stadium is within the Lions’ area, and the majority of the spectators would have been from the greater Johannesburg area.
He didn’t get anything though.
This whole system of paying to host a test is of course totally screwed up when a union puts in a bid for a mid-year test against a team like Wales or Scotland, a Tier 1 team, they pay a lot of money to host the game, and then the opposition pitches up with a B or C team.
Nobody buys tickets to watch, and the Union incurrs a loss.
So, now you know why tests against teams like the All Blacks will only ever be played at the bigger provinces.
More money for SARU, more money for the hosting Union, who in turn have the ability to pay a bigger fee.
63 000 spectators at Ellis Park generates considerably more income than 36 500 spectators in Bloemfontein.
@ Scrumdown:
Cheers Scrumdown, that isn’t good news though we were under the pump there for large parts of that game, without McCaw there next time we might struggle.
Okay you Okes lost. Now get over it.
Positives for the Springboks.
1. Your young locks de Jagger and Estabeth (is that close), played like men possessed. 10 out of 10 for both of them.
2. Midfield of Kriel and De Allende were awesome. Simply awesome. 10 out of 10 for both.
3. Lineout was suspect. But that was partly because you played 2 fetchers. That can be rectified quickly enough.
4. If not for the Golden Oldie Scrums……………………………………does anyone seriously think we (NZ) would have won?
5. No card for Bizzie in this Test.
6. Pollard is the real deal.
7.Boks WILL get better from here on in.
8. The loss will help motivate you next time.
Negatives for The Boks:
1. The return of Victor and Jean will weaken this Team.
@ NZINCHINA:
Hello China,
Long time no see.
😉
@ cane:
Hi Caner,
Yes it’s been a while mate, great season for your Canes. Another classic tussle at Ellis, fortunately the WC won’t be played there this year otherwise we might be in the shit 😆
cane wrote:
And kill the creativity
cane wrote:
I was worried, I thought Nonu and Smith would school them
The old saying still rings true
“If you’re good enough, you’re old enough”
Victoriabok wrote:
Users Online
Total 100 users including 0 member, 100 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,436,571 Page Impressions
_