Stat Attack: Blunt Stormers blow it

The home side made a whopping 1044m via 163 carries, close to double that of the Brumbies, yet construed to lose a match that had them dominating both possession and territory.

A look at the match stats from Newlands:

Match information:

  • Points: STO 17-19 BRU
  • Tries: STO 2-3 BRU
  • Penalty goals: STO 1-0 BRU
  • Goal kicking %: STO 67% – 67% BRU
  • Possession: STO 64% – 36% BRU
  • Territory: STO 65% – 35% BRU
  • Ball in play: 36 minutes

Attacking stats:

  • Ball Carries: STO 163-83 BRU
  • Metres run: STO 1044-393 BRU
  • Line breaks: STO 3-3 BRU
  • Tackle breaks: STO 0-1 BRU
  • Passes: STO 208-97 BRU
  • Good Passes: STO 196-88 BRU
  • Offloads: STO 10-8 BRU
  • Rucks won: STO 130-53 BRU
  • Mauls won: STO 7-8 BRU
  • Turnovers conceded: STO 14-6 BRU

Defensive stats:

  • Tackles made: STO 95-275 BRU
  • Tackles missed: STO 3-12 BRU
  • Tackle success: STO 97% – 96% BRU
  • Dominant tackles: STO 2-0 BRU
  • Tackle turnover: STO 0-0 BRU
  • Turnovers won: STO 1-1 BRU

Kicking stats:

  • Kicks from hand: STO 17-21 BRU
  • Metres kicked: STO 519-568 BRU

Error stats:

  • Handling errors: STO 10-4 BRU
  • Penalties conceded: STO 7-10 BRU

- Tank Lanning

Let's chat

  • SweetAz

    Well, according to people who believe in “stats” the Stormers should have won this game by 30 points. Unfortunately, rugby is not played on a spreadsheet and intangibles like “gees” and rugby intelligence is sorely lacking in this team.

    But of course, it’s all because of the ref, domkrag and a conspiracy concocted by the Springbok selectors to disadvantage all the other South African franchises..

    • John Comyn

      The ref was piss poor and the selections did play a role. That said the Stormers should still have won it by 30 points. I do agree and have said it all along – the stupidity is beyond belief. As the saying goes “you can’t fix stupid”.

    • Amien

      Rugby intelligence something our SA players lack in abundance.

  • Wesley

    Like i said before, its worrying our teams cant put a full 80 or complete performance this entire competition so far. The Sharks and Bulls have somehow achieved this but only in derbies. Why? Will be copying this comment across the stat attack articles coz its truely worrying. Stormers were so one dimensional, goodness it was hard to watch. Constantly just running into traffic. They should have put the Brumbies away by the 50th with many try opportunities sqandered. They and the Sharks have trouble holding onto ball in contact, jeez they are professional, nothing a coach should teach at this level.

  • Herman Schroder?

    Thank you Lions for at least saving SA rugby some serious blushes this morning. ( Just rubbing it in, lol ). As I mentioned on the Sharkettes site the coach must go NOW. Fleck is clearly marking time until his contract ends and the Stormers are rudderless in the meantime. Anyone watching the Sharks and Stormers games in their entirety will think that these teams are playing in some third tier competition for a wooden spoon. Even our Bok front row could not assert themselves and that against the Aussies.

    Not a Bok in sight imo and where was the leadership ?? Kolisi cannot inspire a team that’s obvious and poor old Kitshoff felt obligated to question just about every decision the ref made. The halfbacks once again piss poor and you can’t win SR without really top class halvies. Oh boy.

    As for that hoppity skippity bunnie backline with no skills, what a shambles. Tell me how can the players run support lines when the ‘bunnies’ are hopping around all over the place ? The players are slow thinkers at the best of times, lol. Note how the NZ teams do it, fluid running with sublime accurate passing and gliding past the opposition with subtle stepping. The ‘bunnie’ style might work at Varsity level but smart teams will easily cope with it.

    No Fleckie pack your bags and leave with some dignity intact. Twelve years in the WP coaching box and still clueless. Enough is enough. Not such a cheerful Cheers.

  • Barry

    A pretty poor display, but one that could so easily have been won, by simply taking the three pointers that were on offer. The stats will tell you that there were 10 gifts presented and only one taken – they lost by two!

    The coaching issues are well documented but it seems administrators are happy to let these deficiencies see the season out.

    Another issue that is impacting our teams is the fact that top players are either feigning injury or holding back in the interests of world cup preservation, whilst others in the mix are playing as individuals in the hope of impressing Erasmus!

  • Barry

    Just as a point of interest, why was it a penalty try? I get the high tackle and a penalty, but why a penalty try and a yellow card as a result. The defender reached the attacking player well before the line and had the tackle been slightly lower, there would have been no try and no disciplinary consequences! Any thoughts?

    • Jay

      I too found this interesting Barry. I have heard a ref say over the mic before, “Lucky they scored else you would have been in the bin.”

      In my view the penalty try was the right call BUT I found the yellow card a bit harsh. Granted it was a high shot that erred on the side of professional foul but there was no malice in it. So with the penalty try given, surely that should have been enough?

      Consistency is still something that is severely lacking in the ref calls and zi hope this can be sorted out.

    • Wesley

      Like the ref explained, if he tackled the player even waist high, he would have most probably slid over. But even if the last defender tackles the player illegally at the 22 and is the last defender with no possiblity of a cover defender, the ref is to deem that tackling player non existant and that the try would in all possiblity scored the try. Thats why the TMO gave wide angle images to the ref to determine the possiblity of cover defenders. It was a perfect call in amongst the pretty terrible reffing both ways.

      • Barry

        Thanks for the view Wesley, but not sure it is so cut and dry!

        Certainly in instances where there is an early tackle or some other form of off the ball incident and there are no other defenders in play, the decision would be founded. In this instance, the timing of the tackle was fair, but a bit high, remembering that defenders have the right to make tackles to prevent try’s. The debate of whether a try would have been scored if the tackle was lower, becomes a bit subjective!

        How does this for example differ from players that slow the attacking ball down in the red zone, there are often penalties awarded, occasionally a yellow card for repeated infringements, but can’t think when last we had a penalty try and a card dished out, for this. Slowing the ball down is a deliberate foul, whilst tackling a bit high is an error of judgement! Seemed a bit harsh to me!

        • Max

          Any foul or dangerous play makes the last defender non existent and therefore it is a penalty try plus a yellow card. If the high tackle was life threatening or bodily harmed, it would have been a penalty try and a red card. Error of judgement! one word Boet CYNICAL.

        • Wesley

          I think it comes down to open play and slowing down in ruck situation is more of a big “if” than say a runner in an open tryline situation. Same for collapsing maul penalty tries. There was momentum and “most probably” be driven across. And as for the subjectiveness of the call, rugby as a whole is pretty subjective thing. The call the ref had to make was subjective, but was backed up by the TMO, so subjective calls across two or more officials become a bit more “accepted” if you will, although we have seen some howlers even so. Thats the nature of it.

          If the tackle was fair or if an opposing maul was fairly countered then we could have seen the outcome if possibly a knock on could occur, but they dont and didnt, and so the ref gotta make the call. They dont have crystal balls and so have to go with “most probable”. Or we take out penalty tries out the game entirely.

        • Tobokani

          The call was 100% Barry, no defender between him and the line. Remember the criteria is probability so if it’s more probable than not, it’s a penalty try. It doesn’t have to be certain that the try was going to be scored, just probable.

          • Barry

            It did not matter in the end and most seem happy with the call, so I accept the verdict. Just asking myself whether we would all be so certain if the call had been made against an SA side in Australasia?

  • Joos

    Just hope they can pull the together next weekend, as taking my father to Newlands for his Birthday been saving up for this a long time… And don’t want to go watch a loosing game awell here is to next season.

  • Max

    The IRB needs to look at the cynical play like conceding penalties to prevent a try being scored. The numerous collapse of the scrums and mauls, offside play high tackles between the 10m and the try line of the Brumbies. The Stormers were undone by the 4 ref officials. The most important stat missing here are the penalties conceded. I dont know the exact number but it should be around 100! The Rebels (Aussie team again) used the same tactics and they almost got away with a win.

  • Frans van der Westhuizen

    I read most of the posting and totally disagree. The Stormers was plain stupid period. They had more than enough time to take a dropkick and win the game but no we MUST score tries and they tried the all afternoon without success. Tell me is the driopkick prohibited these days? It won most Worlds Cups. Daar is nie medikasie vir dom wees nie. Hoeveel keer hoek toe en …???? al die teenstanders lees SA rugby spanne soos n boek. met n hoek skop dan 110 uit 100 kom daar n maul. Wow. waar de f@& is die kaptein? Sorry geen simpatie. hou aan met hierdie soort rugby en julle sal die houtlepel wen.

  • Gordon

    The most obvious problem that I can see is that the backline will pass the ball to the next guy while still a good 5-10 metres from the defenders. The defense mostly just has to watch the ball go down the line and then nail the final receiver.
    What happened to at least engaging the defender in front of you? Making him wonder whether you coming or have him committed before passing? They create almost zero doubt in defenders with their premature passing.

  • Albert

    What can you say, The Stormers played all the rugby yet lost. It was expansive and exciting, until someone coughed the pill. However, they still scored just as many tries as another SA team which won.The difference being the other SA team taking their kicks and sticking to a forward orientated game.

    You have to laud the Stormers though, they are developing an attacking brand and trying to play expansively. They just don’t have the correct coaches to do so. You can see it in the execution, but the intent is there. It must be said, that when they get it right, I think they will be the closest team in SA to the Kiwis. There is a lot of talent in the Stomers squad, they just need the same in the coaches box. For far too long De Allende and co. have been coached to play one dimensional rugby.

    But I am optimistic that our teams are developing some good ability. The proof is that the Lions have not beaten any SA team yet. There is life in all our teams when the occasion suits them. We just need better coaches and more consistent approach to each game.

Comments are closed.