Northern | US

The numbers behind the Wallabies’ uphill battle against the Springboks


Head coach of the Wallabies Les Kiss walks past Isaac Kailea of the Wallabies at the end of a test match between Argentina Los Pumas and Australia Wallabies at 23 de Agosto Stadium on August 29, 2026 in Jujuy, Argentina. (Photo by Marcos Brindicci/Getty Images)
Comments
18 Comments

The Wallabies are on a five-game unbeaten streak; four of those results have come under new head coach Les Kiss, and it must be said, the vibes are positive.

Kiss, like his predecessor Joe Schmidt, has really promoted the belief he has in the squad and the belief the Wallabies players have in themselves- with this mantra allowing Kiss to seriously shake up the Wallaby playbook.

“We’re more capable of mixing our team up than we think,” Kiss said ahead of the trip to Argentina.

Kiss lived up to his belief in the team and his statement, proving it in Argentina.

An average of 13 changes from Test match to Test Match during his four-game tenure, with a high of 15 changes in the matchday 23s from the first and second games against Los Pumas.

While this is a number purely based on what number was on the back of a player’s jersey, the number nonetheless vindicates Kiss in his “experimentation” with his squad.

Experimentation has been a buzzword Kiss has been quick to separate himself and his methods from, preferring to use terms like ‘exploration.’

“Are they experiments? I think there’s a lot of good men in that team that know they can flex into different positions, so I like to think that it’s more than just experimentation,” he said.

“It’s just having a real trust and faith that they can do this in different ways, and that we don’t lose momentum about what we are and what we do.

“So I’m not rebutting the word, but I’m just saying I think it’s more that we trust that we have a different way that we can use our resources. That’s what I’m trying to make sure we understand.”

How these changes look on the team sheet is one thing; how it looks in terms of Test cap count is another; 654 caps were fielded against Japan in his first match as coach, 406 of those were in the starting XV.

If we compare that with the last game of the four-match run, a total of 640 caps were fielded, with 551 being in the starting XV.

The bench in Mendoza at the weekend was the most inexperienced it has been under Kiss. 

It had fewer than half the caps of the benches from the games in Jujuy and Townsville, and almost three times as few caps as the one in Osaka.

To put a number on that, it had 89 caps compared to 185, 196, and 248 respectively; those are stark differences in the ability to close out a game and experience.

This was not helped by having to put his favoured halfback into flyhalf with significant minutes left on the clock, but the Wallabies managed to secure a draw, a result they are all a little disappointed with.

Despite the draw, the Wallabies ultimately won the series in Argentina, securing the first piece of silverware for Rugby Australia HQ for some time, but Kiss still has his most difficult block of games ahead of him.

Los Pumas were the litmus test, and although they were missing 12 regular starters from their squad, the results in Argentina at least show the Wallabies are on the up.

However, it is a long, long way to the top, and no higher does it get than the reigning world champion Springboks, who the Wallabies face on September 27.

Related

That Test is then followed by a two-game Bledisloe series against the All Blacks two weeks later.

Kiss will quickly need to consolidate what he and his coaching team have learnt from this four-match block and look forward to the most gruelling patch of matches they will face ahead of the Rugby World Cup.

Here are the numbers of the Kiss tenure so far:

Data/GameJapan 1Japan 2Argentina 1Argentina

2

Tries scored5844
Tries conceded4334

Scoring a total of 21 tries and conceding 14 is a decent-looking ledger, but 14 is a few too many for Kiss and new defence coach Scott McLeod to condone moving forward. 

At set-piece time, things are looking a little better.

Data/GameJapan 1Japan 2Argentina 1Argentina 2
Scrum %8310010086
Lineout %901009388

While the challenges are only set to get sterner at set piece against scrummaging powerhouse South Africa, the Wallabies should be confident that their sweeping front row changes each week have given them options aplenty.

Similarly, the second row and hooker options have been far from stable, and a lineout percentage that has not dipped below 88% is reassuring, to say the least.

In attack, the picture looks bleaker, as Kiss’s desire to see the Wallabies go forward has not necessarily translated onto the field.

Data/GameJapan 1Japan 2Argentina 1Argentina 2
Linebreaks71244
Defenders beaten22521417
Post-contact metres per carry2.6m3.4m1.4m2.1m

There are a few things that should be concerning about these numbers.

Managing only four line breaks against Argentina, with an average of 6.8 per game, is poor.

Beating 52 defenders is a major outlier and can be an aspirational goal, but also an insane number; if you average the data from the other three matches, beating 17.6 is not particularly reassuring either.

Perhaps most concerning of all, though, is the post-contact metres.

Making around 4m per carry is the consensus for the gold standard at Test level; the Wallabies averaged 2.3m per carry across the four games.

If you reach that 4m per carry, you are guaranteed front-foot ball and an ability to play on top of opposition.

If we compare the Wallabies’ average with those of the All Blacks and the Springboks in their three Tests so far, the mountain left to climb for Kiss and his men becomes uncomfortably stark.

The All Blacks managed an average of eight line breaks, and the Springboks managed an average of six line breaks per game against one another.

Related

In terms of defenders beaten, the numbers were very high: the All Blacks beat an average of 32 defenders per game, and the Springboks managed ten fewer, with 22 defenders per game on average.

However, here comes the sucker punch: the post-contact metres.

Just by watching the games, you can feel, see, and sense the ferocity, aggression, power, and intent in the contacts made in these Greatest Rivalry Tour Tests, and you already feel the Pumas and Wallabies are miles away from that.

The All Blacks managed an average of 2.8m per carry against the best defence in the world.

Conversely, the Springboks managed a whopping 3.0m per carry against the second-best team in the world.

The Wallabies, as a collective and as individual athletes, are not offering enough with the ball in hand.

These numbers can be improved by greater teamwork in their pods and by improving their running lines, but it is also a matter of selection.

If there was any more context needed before we go on, the All Blacks and Springboks are playing the best and second-best in the world, respectively; the Wallabies secured their stats against no.12 and no.7 in the world; the latter was missing 12 of their regular starters to boot.

If Kiss wants his men to go forward with ball in hand, he must start selecting his gainline winners; there’s no two ways about it.

This means calling in more powerful athletes in the backs, and selecting the big men he has in his wider squad in the pack.

In defence, the Wallabies have improved, and despite what Schmidt used to say about “improvement not being linear,” the Wallabies are very much trending in one direction, up, under the new McLeod defence system.

Data/GameJapan 1Japan 2Argentina 1Argentina 2
Defence %88908587
Linebreaks conceded9343
Post-contact meters by opposition3.3m2.6m1.7m1.7m
Total points conceded32172128

The defensive percentage tells you little in isolation, but when connected with the line breaks conceded, it can paint you a better picture, and it shows that the Wallabies are improving steadily in their connection despite their varied lineups.

This will buoy McLeod and Kiss; if we infer that the undermanned Pumas are still a stronger side than Japan, ranked five teams below them, then the ability to find improving connection is a really good sign.

It means that McLeod is cutting through with his detail to the wider squad, not just the matchday players.

This is most starkly reflected in the post-contact metres conceded across the four games; the lower numbers against the Pumas two weeks in a row are a great sign.

This is particularly so considering Argentina selected their biggest and heaviest team for the last game in Mendoza, and nonetheless, the Wallabies managed to keep them to just 1.7m per carry on average.

What is also clear from the table is that, regardless of who the Wallabies play, their magic number of conceding 22 points still remains a strong indicator of success.

Related

Should the Wallabies concede more than 22 points, then their chance of winning a Test match significantly decreases.

Just look at their Tests stretching back to the beginning of 2025.

In 2025, the Wallabies’ opponents scored 22 points or more on 12 occasions, and the Wallabies lost 10 of those matches, making for an 83% loss rate when opponents score more than 22 points.

In 2026, the Wallabies’ opponents scored 22 points or more on four occasions; the Wallabies lost two of them, won one, and drew one, making for a win rate of only 25%.

It is clear that while the Wallabies defence is improving, they must get better at keeping sides out of their 22m zone because once they enter, the Wallabies are still too porous.

Finally, the miscellaneous numbers from the four matches.

Data/GameJapan 1Japan 2Argentina 1Argentina 2
Penalties conceded9 (1 Red card)59 (1 yellow card)7 (1 YC)
Turnovers conceded2356
Kicks25252416
Territory%45485248

The discipline is looking steady if not one or two too many penalties conceded per game; but the cards are a worrying pattern.

The turnovers conceded will be something for forward coaches John Ulugia, Tom Donnelly, and Jonny Fisher to consider; both the All Blacks and the Springboks have excellent turnover merchants aplenty.

The Kicks are something to continue to work on, as are the territory figures.

Again, in isolation these stats mean very little, but in the context of Kiss continually citing a need to improve the game-driving aspect of the Wallabies, he is demanding his game drivers to get his team into the right parts of the field and stay there.

Related

To date, the Wallabies have played too much rugby in their own half, and usually lose the kicking battles they are a part of.

This is a big work on for the Wallabies and their coaches, because unless they can learn to control the skies, they will find it too difficult to pin the All Blacks and impossible to contain the Springboks.

With all these numbers now in front of us, it is clear that the Wallabies have a lot of work to do on the field, and Kiss has a lot to workshop ahead of this next block of games.

The Wallabies are trending mostly in the right direction, but for all the competition that Kiss has been building in camp, it’s time that his best matchday 23 steps forward and delivers.

There is so much in these numbers that shows the Wallabies’ chopping and changing at the selection table has not allowed a baseline to be discovered, not a ceiling.

The true benefits, if any, from this tactic of Kiss will not be revealed until later in the year, but the pressure is on right now, and the Wallabies are about to find out if they can cut it with the best, one way or another.

ADVERTISEMENT
Play Video
LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

18 Comments
R
RA 34 days ago

Good read John. Thanks. Any chance you can drum up a comparative statistical analysis of our kicking game?


To me, it's our weakest link.


We don't seem able to get distance with our penalties and restarts - our 10s since Foley have been firing short pop guns rather than booming clearances.


We can't seem to regather the ball on our aerial kick chase - somewhat strange given our unique capacity to tap AFL skill sets and nous.


We don't seem to possess the capacity to finesse and shape our kicks in general play - grubbers and chips go ungathered, or find an opponent rather than space.


And, we're a little formulaic with our box kick - I seem to recall us banging it high a couple of times when we were on the front foot and ball in hand appeared a better option.


I suppose I should be grateful the forwards haven't stuffed up any of our penalty taps from 5m out from their line - unlike Meredith in our own half versus Japan.


Apart from Lonergan’s recent goal kicking form and an occasional (lucky) 50-22 from Wright et al, we're bang average with the boot.

R
RW 34 days ago

Obviously nothing he can do about it but that is possibly the oddest combination of names I have heard.

N
NH 34 days ago

Nice one John. I have been banging the game management or ‘drivers’ drum from game 1 vs ireland this year. Wallabies simply don’t control the game as much as the opposition and this results in them being under more pressure and defending rather than the other way round. Ireland, like during the lions series, knew they could just lean on them with box kicks and pressure and eventually the wallabies would concede under the weight of pressure. One telling stat was both ire and fra only conceded 1 penalty each in their own half, WBs could only dream of this discipline. I think the wallabies attack and set piece have been good and 22 execution great. I also agree defence is on the up. But, they simply don’t have the ball in the right areas enough to make oppo teams pay. Exits, restarts, silly errors and penalties in their own half, poor kick chase all in need of improvement.

T
Tooly 35 days ago

Les is having difficulties in separating himself from his Reds players .

Two players he ignores but should try are Lachie Anderson and Tim Ryan .

It’s not unusual and a weakness in appointing a franchise coach .

J
John 35 days ago

They are talents but unsure whether they truly move the dial in terms of gainline.

P
PM 35 days ago

Really good analysis John. Even more than usual. Enjoying your YouTube stuff too

J
John 35 days ago

Cheers PM, glad you’re enjoying the work on all the platforms! Definitely been working hard to get as much timely stuff to my audience as possible! More stuff coming in the back end of the week! Stay tuned!

T
Two Cents 35 days ago

The problem with basing an analysis on the numbers alone is that they're an aggregate from the whole match and you have no context for their occurrence.


This means that you're often not comparing like with like which means that anything you say based on that won't actually be accurate.


I actually think the performance in Mendoza was actually the best complete performance from the Wallabies despite featuring the exact same frustrations as always and having to settle for a draw when they should have won.


The reason it was the best is because they were in complete control for practically the whole game whereas in their three previous tests they required their opponent to become lax and go into coast mode to get the upper hand.


At no point did it ever actually look like Australia was going to lose. And while you could argue the Townsville test was so obviously one sided from start to finish that they were never at risk of a different result, they didn't completely dominate that match until the final quarter.


Sure, conceding over 22 points is too many, missing over 30 tackles is too many, conceding twice as many line breaks as you make yourself is too many, making less than 4 post contact metres on average per carry is just not enough and many other things besides.


That's all pretty straight forward. The problem however is that each of these things isn't in and of itself explanatory nor does it provide any insight about the effect of those numbers.


For instance, penalties and yellow cards are not significant just because they occur. They're significant only when they actually change the flow of the game, which isn't always the case mind you, because then the occurrence generates pressure.


An example from the weekend is when Williams was sent off and then Argentina went on to produce 14 points with him off the field.


It reveals just how much work he was contributing prior to his absence and that his sudden removal resulted in a lapse in the centre of the Wallabies defence.


To show the counter to that, when Miles was red carded in Osaka, Japan scored no points whilst the Wallabies were down a man for 20 minutes.


So instead of creating a hole the team lifted to take up the extra load generated by being a player down.


That might all seem to run counter to my claim that Mendoza was the best performance to date but why it is consistent is that the lapse was only temporary and from that point on the Wallabies were on top of everything.


The most frustrating element that seems very hard to exorcise from the Wallabies is their tendency to slide into desperation when they're not getting the progress they expect when they have all the momentum.


And that couldn't have been more starkly demonstrated than the final 10 minutes in Mendoza. The fact that every single promising moment they had during that final phase of the match was spoiled by impatience and a lack of composure is very disappointing.


It's also the proof of why Wilson is not a good captain and why whoever is ultimately given the role must be more than just a “follow me” guy. We need someone who can pull a Henry V and with his “brother” speech refocus and lift the team, especially at the death.


What we needed with the two man advantage was simply to control the ball and keep grinding it forward. Instead, they kept trying to force the issue and bash the door down making it way too easy for Argentina to get numbers behind the ball and repel every attack until the Wallabies inevitably turned it over.


Someone needed to stand up and say to the team, “Look boys. They're rattled. That's why they're two men down. Just hold onto the ball and rumble it forwards and we get over the line.”


Instead, they overplayed every time they had the ball ultimately resulting in a 3-1 disparity in possession to the Pumas for that whole time they had two less men on the field.


The Wallabies should have been able to cross the line at least twice during that time yet spoiled every chance they had to do so.


They simply have to be better than that.

J
John 35 days ago

While I agree that data can be misleading, they are recorded and look at for a reason. Those post contact metres are not good enough and that is black on white.


What is also black on white is the amount of post contact metres the Wallabies are denying other teams.


They are clear indicators of potency, and contact work.


It must be able be looked at in the context of what we see with our eyes, and the Wallabies currenlty are unable to get forward.

H
HenryAU 35 days ago

Wallabies will have a chance against the Boks as they will no doubt send a second/third string side after RGR tour. Very few of the Bok starters will make the trip, it’s a ‘building depth’ tour for Rassie.

J
John 35 days ago

That chance means they are in the contest, doesn’t guarentee them anything. We saw what a 7th ranked side like Los Pumas ciykd do to us without 12 of their starters, let’s think about what a Springboks side who are world no.1 can do with 12 missing, it won’t be a 28-all draw, they will batter us unless we find our grit and gainline winners.

T
Two Cents 35 days ago

It wasn't a second string side when they faced them in Joburg last year.


Your arbitrary and subjective assessment of the quality of the side they will face in Perth has no bearing on whether the Wallabies will win or lose.


They will win if they can hold their own up front and don't get themselves pinned down in their own half.


That is the same regardless of whether the Boks send the same starting 23 from the tour down or whether it's composed entirely of broader squad players.


Anything like how they played against Japan and Argentina and they'll likely get smoked.

P
Perthstayer 35 days ago

They will have no hope if they miss 19 tackles like they did on Saturday.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Long Reads

Comments on RugbyPass

Close Panel
Close Panel

Edition & Time Zone

{{current.name}}
Set time zone automatically
{{selectedTimezoneTitle}} (auto)
Choose a different time zone
Close Panel

Editions

Close Panel

Change Time Zone

Close
ADVERTISEMENT
Copied to clipboard

Share Article close