Richard Ferguson

Wales v Boks: The Stats

Written by Richard Ferguson (Richard Ferguson)

Posted in :Original Content, Springboks on 15 Nov 2010 at 10:42
Tagged with : , , , ,

The Boks stumbled to win over the Welsh on Saturday thanks largely to some awesome individual performances on attack, but mostly on defence.

Starting off with the tackling stats, the Springboks made 182 tackles and missed 9, giving them an effective rate of 95%. The tackle heroes of the day were Juan Smith (18), Beast Mtawarira (17) and Victor Matfield (15). The centres were particularly busy on the day, with a massive 12 hits each, and only two slips in the midfield. The worst tackler on the day was Pierre Spies, who attempted 12 tackles and missed 3. A honorable mention to Willem Alberts who played less than half a game and yet still managed 11 hits.

Running with ball in hand was not a big part of the game on Saturday, and this is clear from the running meters gained. A mere 267 meters was gained on the day, with it split quite evenly amongst all the players. Aplon did have the largest amount of meters gained with 56 meters. Looking at the Kick/Pass/Run stats, it is rather surprising to see the number of times the ball was run. Outside of the halfbacks, Spies and Bismarck each had the ball 13 times, each running it 11 times and passing only twice.

7 penalties in total were conceded, with nobody really standing out with seven individual errors. There were very few lineouts on the day, compared to the previous game where Matfield won 11 balls, this time around he only got 3.


  • Alberts was huge for the 35 odd minutes he was on!!

  • Comment 1, posted at 15.11.10 11:00:49 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • RugbyXV (Jake the Snake) has Juan Smith at 22 tackles, Beast 19, Matfield 17 and Alberts 15…

    Hugely impressive either way for Willem. And how was that chip kick?

  • Comment 2, posted at 15.11.10 11:37:36 by Sportbilly Reply
  • Stegman was a bit dissapointing imo. he did not do much on attack or defence and as a fetcher did not steal any ball, or even contested rucks. did anyone notice how we stood off tackles and rucks on saterday? commitment issues or game-plan? the moment we started tackling them backwards and tackling them behind their advatange line, was the moment we scored 2 tries…

  • Comment 3, posted at 15.11.10 11:38:00 by VanWilder Reply
  • @Sportbilly (Comment 2) :

    I got my stats from ESPN Scrum.

    I wil see if I can confirm them esewhere.. stats are kinda hard to find..

  • Comment 4, posted at 15.11.10 11:43:50 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • really not surprised about spies and that one tackle cost us a try. spies and habana need to be replaced by mvovo and kanko. well done to alberts, he was awesome, hopefully he’ll start this weekend

  • Comment 5, posted at 15.11.10 11:59:26 by RuckingFun Reply
  • can believe the tackle count for our forwards,but our midfield I was convinved was realy poor at tackling!

  • Comment 6, posted at 15.11.10 12:12:04 by baw Reply
  • @baw (Comment 6) : Me too… I’m convinced I saw JDV miss quite a few tackles?

    Does it count as a missed tackle if his attempt is so pathetic that he misses the guy completely and someone else ends up having to make the tackle?

  • Comment 7, posted at 15.11.10 12:31:25 by CS Reply
  • @CS (Comment 7) : I agree! Thats what i saw happen!

  • Comment 8, posted at 15.11.10 12:53:45 by baw Reply
  • I want to know what they determine a tackle?

    Is it 1 on 1 or do they count assisted or 3rd tacklers taking down a player?

    I know thre was a little dispute in the Sharks U19 and U21 as th U21 stats guy had the rucks being hit around 4 to 5 times more than the U19 and when they studied it…the guys was counting whenever a player got to a ruck even if he was ineffective where the U19 stats guy only put down effective ruck hits…

    so as with the tackle thre is a fine line of how its defined.

    In the 90’s if a player made 4 tackles in a game he was at the top of his game…see how much it has since changed…

  • Comment 9, posted at 15.11.10 13:46:24 by Barrel Reply
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 4) : Hey Rich can you do me a favour and look and Spies and Bismarks meters gained. It would be interesting to see how Spies averages against Bissie, who I thought did quite well in this area.

  • Comment 10, posted at 15.11.10 14:07:25 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Letgo (Comment 10) : This should help

  • Comment 11, posted at 15.11.10 14:24:54 by lostfish Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter lostfish
  • So Basson and Chilliboy are on their way home after failing a drug test. That’s another stat for springbok history in the last 20 years.

  • Comment 12, posted at 15.11.10 14:32:55 by Mocho Reply
  • Springboks Chiliboy Ralepelle and Bjorn Basson are returning home from South Africa’s tour of Britain and Ireland having returned positive samples for a banned stimulant following the test against Ireland on November 6

  • Comment 13, posted at 15.11.10 14:36:01 by Barrel Reply
  • @baw (Comment 6) : i agree 100% between jdiv and morne i saw atleast 8 missed tackles

    not sure who keeps the stats

  • Comment 14, posted at 15.11.10 14:39:00 by sharks_lover Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld sharks_lover
  • @Barrel (Comment 13) : That’s embarrassing. Basson’s 21 Tries???

  • Comment 15, posted at 15.11.10 14:58:35 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Letgo (Comment 15) :

    Are you saying that he scored those 21 tries as a result of him taking some banned drug?

  • Comment 16, posted at 15.11.10 15:17:54 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 16) : Nobody has to say that, the problem is that the record will now always be tainted because now there is always the possibility that he broke the record because of performance enhancing drugs. As is commonly said in America, there will always be an asterisk next to his name in the record books.

  • Comment 17, posted at 15.11.10 15:26:34 by Dancing Bear Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Dancing Bear
  • @Dancing Bear (Comment 17) :

    Do you really believe that this is true?!

    Do you think he scored those because he was bigger or faster?

  • Comment 18, posted at 15.11.10 15:29:05 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • @Dancing Bear (Comment 17) :

    I think lets not make statements like the one Letgo has made before the players in question have had a chance to defend themselves.

    I wonder if Letgo would have made a similar comment if the players were Lambie and Mvovo?? 😕

  • Comment 19, posted at 15.11.10 15:37:53 by wpw Reply
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 18) : You said it. I actually don’t think he needed to take any drugs, because those tries took skill, and drugs don’t improve that, but maybe he had that second more and just a little more power that needed him to get some of those tries.

    It was a bum move on his side. This may mean the end of his Bok career, we have enough good wings who can now take his place!

  • Comment 20, posted at 15.11.10 15:39:53 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @wpw (Comment 19) :

    Aren’t the players allowed to have their B samples tested?

    And surely they both would have gone through the testing at the Springbok camp as well as during the Currie Cup?

  • Comment 21, posted at 15.11.10 15:41:39 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • @Letgo (Comment 20) :


    And who says it is his fault? If it is him and Chili, then surely the team would have used some supplement as a group?

  • Comment 22, posted at 15.11.10 15:43:56 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • @wpw (Comment 19) : most sporting bodies don’t release results unless they are almost certain. in rugby i don’t recall many players successfully defending themselves once results have been released. so i’ll be surprised if they aren’t guilty.

  • Comment 23, posted at 15.11.10 15:44:58 by try time Reply
  • @wpw (Comment 19) : I like Basson and would have made the same statement had it been any other player.

    Taking performance enhancement drugs is just not on. If the player took the drugs, then it doesn’t matter what they say.

    Also I don’t think a sentence with a question mark is a statement, more of a question. 😉

    I still think it’s embarrassing and can only hope there is some kind of reason to redeem these two players, but I won’t just believe any story they try to sell. In most cases like this, there is a very simple answer and it’s usually not even closely related to the story the player or athlete spins when caught out.

  • Comment 24, posted at 15.11.10 15:46:36 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 22) : the drugs would have been taken before the tour as it was the irish game and the boks only got there two days before. so very possible they did it on their own.

  • Comment 25, posted at 15.11.10 15:46:50 by try time Reply
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 22) : So only Basson and Chili was tested?

    If so, then expect a few more random tests of SA players. If they suspect it’s a team thing, then the whole team (or those responsible for team supplements)will be in trouble. No actually each individual player who took it will be in trouble, they are all adults, ignorance is no excuse. So lets hope it’s only these two players.

  • Comment 26, posted at 15.11.10 15:54:14 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @wpw (Comment 19) : nah – she’s just taking a cheap shot at the Bulls player 😈 c’mon wpw you are very about being personal about certain players.

    I mean there are players who just yield themselves to be more talked about than others.

    (and for the record I’m joking).

  • Comment 27, posted at 15.11.10 15:54:37 by rekinek Reply
  • @Letgo (Comment 26) :

    Who knows how many players got tested.. I posted the release as I got it from SARU..

    But lets all just calm down until we know exactly what is going. The substance was going to allowed after January anyway, it can’t be that bad?!

  • Comment 28, posted at 15.11.10 15:57:43 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 18) : I really don’t know one way or another if he scored those tries because of his natural ability and hard work or if he took a shortcut. My point is that the record will always be tainted in some way because of the possibility being brought to light now.

  • Comment 29, posted at 15.11.10 15:59:35 by Dancing Bear Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Dancing Bear
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 28) : Richard, I think you may have misunderstood. The substance will not be allowed starting in January, it will simply be re-categorized as a specified banned substance. Or perhaps I misunderstood.

  • Comment 30, posted at 15.11.10 16:03:59 by Dancing Bear Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Dancing Bear
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 28) : I’m calm 😎

    The no reason we can’t debate about how bad it would be if it’s all true, worse case scenario and all.

    You prefer to look at it from best case scenario and that’s okay too.

  • Comment 31, posted at 15.11.10 16:09:14 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Dancing Bear (Comment 30) : I’m with you on this one.

  • Comment 32, posted at 15.11.10 16:10:01 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Dancing Bear (Comment 30) : the arti says “specific stimulant” whatever this means and I also understood that it would be unbanned.

  • Comment 33, posted at 15.11.10 16:13:00 by rekinek Reply
  • @rekinek (Comment 33) : I believe that when a substance first goes on the banned list, it is categorized as unspecified. After a period of time it is categorized as a specified banned substance. That toes not mean it is now allowable.

  • Comment 34, posted at 15.11.10 16:16:45 by Dancing Bear Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Dancing Bear
  • If it is specified as a stimulant, then it would definitely be banned, they are not going to allow any stimulant, past caffeine.

  • Comment 35, posted at 15.11.10 16:17:59 by Dancing Bear Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Dancing Bear
  • Non-specified means there are no concession in the WADA code for unintended use..

  • Comment 36, posted at 15.11.10 16:23:16 by Ice-Cool CC Champ 2010 Reply
  • All Prohibited Substances shall be considered as “Specified
    Substances” except Substances in classes S1, S2.1 to S2.5,
    S.4.4 and S6.a, and Prohibited Methods M1, M2 and M3.


  • Comment 37, posted at 15.11.10 16:25:08 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Letgo
  • @Dancing Bear (Comment 35) :
    @Letgo (Comment 37) :

    The World Anti-Doping Agency recently loosened the classification of methylhexaneamine, beginning next year, to the “specified stimulant” list, which covers drugs more susceptible to inadvertent use and can carry reduced penalties.

  • Comment 38, posted at 15.11.10 16:30:59 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Richard Ferguson
  • Willem was a monster last weekend…He really had a great game…only real loss to the LIONS

    Since Brussouw non of the No 6 flanks we played were able to turnover any ball…so it will be to our benefit to start with him and Juan…

  • Comment 39, posted at 16.11.10 10:31:45 by Hmmm Reply
  • Even though JdV did not miss many…he shot up in defense a lot…and missed the “ball” (is in the ball was passed out by the player he marked before he got there)…on 3 occasions (that I picked up) when he did that the Welsh backline got in behind him and if it was not for the great cover defense by mostly the loosies we might have been in trouble…
    Habana also once ended up behind the entire Welsh attacking line when he shot out of the defensive line…and had to rush back for cover…

    Had the Welsh been slightly more awake we could have been in a bit of trouble…
    At no time did either JdV or Habana cut down and attacking move when they did that…thus in my opinion there was no benefit and merely placed our defense at risk….

  • Comment 40, posted at 16.11.10 10:47:48 by Hmmm Reply

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.