Ireland’s win over Japan wasn’t a classic breakdown dogfight.

Japan, like almost everyone else these days, decided that not competing at the breakdown — slow tackle recycle was the most they did — and two-man stops were the order of the day. You cede quick ruck ball to Ireland in that scenario, on most rucks, but you compensate by packing the pillars and using that half or quarter-blitz we’ve spoken about in the last few weeks to clog Ireland’s passing lanes and force deeper passes or bridge balls over the top.

It worked, for a while, but ultimately their conditioning let them down.

So how did it look at ruck for Ireland, and what does that data say about the overall performance?

Ireland’s OFFENSIVE RUCK WORK SCORE vs Japan

• A Dominant Clean is an action that decisively secures possession or that puts the defending player on the ground and keeps them there. It is worth 3 points.
• A Guard Action is where a player plays a role in helping to retain possession and either secures against a counter-ruck or ensures the players we’ve put on the ground stay there. Let’s assign this action 2 points.
• An Attendance can be anything from adding a bit of bulk to ward against a counter-ruck to extending your leg to make space for a box kick. I’m marking this down as being worth 1 point.
• An Ineffective Action is a blown cleanout, a lean, a breakdown penalty or an action that I couldn’t see any direct benefit for. This will be worth -2 points.

Player	Dominant Cleans	Guard A	Att.	Inef.	TRA	ORW Score	Quality Index	Ineffective Rate %	ORW Share %
1. Porter	1.0	17.0	4.0		22.0	41.0	1.864	0.0	4.27
7. Timoney		17.0	4.0	1.0	22.0	36.0	1.727	4.5	3.75
3. Clarkson		13.0	6.0		19.0	32.0	1.684	0.0	3.33
5. Beirne	2.0	12.0	7.0	3.0	24.0	31.0	1.542	12.5	3.23
12. Henshaw		9.0			9.0	18.0	2.0	0.0	1.88
15. Osbourne		9.0			9.0	18.0	2.0	0.0	1.88
13. Farrell		11.0		2.0	13.0	18.0	1.692	15.4	1.88
8. Doris	1.0	9.0		2.0	12.0	17.0	1.75	16.7	1.77
2. Kelleher		7.0	2.0		9.0	16.0	1.778	0.0	1.67
4. Ryan		6.0	7.0	2.0	15.0	15.0	1.267	13.3	1.56
6. Baird		8.0	3.0	2.0	13.0	15.0	1.462	15.4	1.56
14. T. O'Brien		6.0	2.0		8.0	14.0	1.75	0.0	1.46
18. Bealham	1.0	4.0	2.0	1.0	8.0	11.0	1.625	12.5	1.15
11. Stockdale		6.0		1.0	7.0	10.0	1.714	14.3	1.04
20. Conan	1.0	3.0		1.0	5.0	7.0	1.8	20.0	0.73
16. G. McCarthy		5.0		2.0	7.0	6.0	1.429	28.6	0.62
19. C. Prendergast	2.0	2.0		2.0	6.0	6.0	1.667	33.3	0.62
10. Crowley		2.0			2.0	4.0	2.0	0.0	0.42
22. S. Prendergast		1.0			1.0	2.0	2.0	0.0	0.21
23. J. O'Brien		1.0			1.0	2.0	2.0	0.0	0.21
17. P. McCarthy			1.0		1.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.1
9. Casey					0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
21. Blade				1.0	1.0	-2.0	0.0	100.0	-0.21

Headline

• ORW total: 318

• Total ruck actions: 214 → Positive rate: 90.7% (Ineffective 9.3%)

• Action mix (of positives): Dominant 4.1% · Guard 76.3% · Attendance 19.6%

• ORW per action: 1.486

Top Performers (ORW Scoring)

1.  Porter — 41

2. Timoney — 36

3. Clarkson — 32

4. Beirne — 31

5. Henshaw — 18

Quality/Discipline

• Quality Index (≥10 actions): Porter 1.864; Doris 1.750; Timoney 1.727; Farrell 1.692; Clarkson 1.684.

• Highest Ineffective Rate (≥8 actions): Doris 16.7%; Farrell 15.4%; Baird 15.4%; Ryan 13.3%; Beirne 12.5%.

• Zero-ineffective (≥8 actions): Porter, Clarkson, Henshaw, Osbourne, Kelleher, T. O’Brien.

Unit breakdown (share of player ORW)

• Starting Front Row (1–3): 89 (28.0%) — strong guard load, 0% ineff.

• Starting Back Row (6–8): 68 (21.4%) — 10.6% ineff; clean-up accuracy here — Baird in particular will need to be much more imposing against Australia.

• Starting Second Row (4–5): 46 (14.5%) — 12.8% ineffective; mixed quality.

• Starting Back Three: 42 (13.2%) — tidy (4.2% ineff).

• Starting Centres: 36 (11.3%) — light volume.

• Bench/Other: 33 (10.4%).

Output & Tempo

• LBR: 10 ÷ 93 = 0.1075 ⇒ 10.75 linebreaks per 100 rucks (one every 9.3 rucks). That’s a big return for the ruck volume and really blew up in the second half as Japan tired.
• Ruck-speed: Ireland played 64% of the ball at 0–3s (26% at 3–6s; 10% at 6s+). With Japan largely non-competing, that fast-ball share translated cleanly into the LBR above, especially as their blitz alignment fell away.

Actions Per Ruck

Actions per ruck (APR): 214 total Irish ruck actions ÷ 93 rucks ≈ 2.30 per ruck. That’s below our “overloaded” threshold of 3.0, so Ireland weren’t flooding cleanouts. It generally wasn’t needed.

Positive-action mix: Only 8 dominant cleans (≈ 0.09 per ruck). Positives were guard-heavy — 148 guards vs 38 attendances (of positive actions, ~76% guard, ~20% attendance, ~4% dominant).

Basically: This was a classic response to a low-contest defence — secure the ball with guards and recycle; no need to blast bodies off.

Accuracy: Ineffective actions 20/214 = 9.3% (≈ 0.22 per ruck). That’s pretty tidy for this volume/tempo, but won’t translate against Australia.

Pack Signals

Front row: zero ineffective across 50 actions; this was the biggest ORW chunk of the pack. They anchored clean recycling without errors and were generally all needed in the actions they provided.

Back row: ~10.6% ineffective; still productive, but the small error load sat mostly here.

Second row: ~12.8% ineffective; a touch loose relative to the rest — worth a look on long clean chains and body height, but especially usage. The question “Did you need to go off your feet here?” should be asked pretty regularly of James Ryan, in particular. Beirne was also well below his usual standards, especially over 80 minutes.

Player Snapshots

• Leaders by ORW: Porter (41), Timoney (36), Clarkson (32), Beirne (31).
• Zero-ineff (≥8 actions): Porter, Clarkson, Henshaw, Osbourne, Kelleher, T. O’Brien.

What it says about the game

Japan’s two-man tackle / no-jackal policy sped the breakdown and reduced the need for dominant cleans, letting Ireland keep numbers in the line. The 2.30 APR plus 64% fast ball explains the double-digit LBR/100.

The small pocket of inefficiency in the back/second rows is the only blemish; against a heavily contesting side that could become turnover or stall-speed, so that’s the tweak point and a key point for Farrell to consider, especially with an enforced change coming at fullback.

We’ll need to duplicate Osbourne’s guard action output if we don’t want to run into issues with overloading other positions.

The Osbourne ORW Effect

9 guard actions, 0 ineffective, 0 attendances/0 dominant → ORW = 18.

Quality Index = 2.00 (pure guards at +2 each, no negatives).

Share of Irish player-ORW: ~5.7% (18 ÷ 318).

Share of all Irish guard actions: ~6.1% (9 ÷ 148).

Share of Back-Three ORW: ~43% (18 of the Back-Three’s 42).

Why was that valuable?

Kept APR down: His 9 low-cost guards helped hold ~2.30 actions/ruck overall (well below our 3.0 “overloaded” threshold). That’s exactly what you want versus a non-competing ruck: secure, single-touch stewardship rather than heavy clears.

Protected fast ball: With 64% of Irish rucks at 0–3s, a back-three guard arriving cleanly (no errors) preserves tempo and lets the pod stay spread — one reason Ireland converted 93 rucks → 10 linebreaks (10.75 per 100).

Shape, not smash: Zero dominants from him is fine here — Japan weren’t jackaling, so a “bodyguard” presence was higher-value than committing extra cleaners. His work essentially saved forwards from over-resourcing and kept more attackers on their feet, which is vital for Andy Farrell’s attacking system.

Osbourne’s tidy, zero-error guard load was a quiet accelerator — banking fast recycle without dragging extra bodies in, which amplified Ireland’s linebreak rate against a low-contest breakdown.

Ireland have typically liked to use a ruck-resourcing fullback under Farrell — Keenan, then Osbourne. With Osbourne out with a dislocated shoulder and Mack Hansen slated to replace him, we’re replacing a ruck mule with a slashing playmaker.

The Plan (who fills the ~9 guards)

• Near-side wing (11/14) = First Guard (5–6 of the 9):
  One-step square, block jackal, single touch, bounce back to width. This will likely mean Lowe, #13, and Tommy O’Brien being heavily involved at wider rucks.

• #12 = Folding Second Guard (2–3 of the 9):
  Sits inside when carry is midfield or when the near-side wing is tied. Keeps 10 free, maintains shape. This is where Ringrose’s fitness is vital because he can take up most of the first guard touches in the wider channels, but if he’s out, that means a choice between a hitter at #12 — McCloskey — or getting Aki’s ruck security into the mix with Henshaw likely filling the #13 jersey. He can hit rucks well, but I worry about his speed and coverage.

• Josh Van Der Flier/Nick Timoney = Escalation Guard (1–2 of the 9):
  Only upgrades to a two-man clean if the defence flips to contest or ball slows (3–6s/6s+ window). Ideally, we’ll keep this player — whoever is selected, as Van Der Flier’s fitness is a doubt — in a more central role, but they will need to cover those rucks outside the first receiver.

Keep Mack out of rucks — deliberately

• Hansen bounces out from any carry he’s just passed into or supported; his default is backfield loop & second touch, not guard.

• Backfield pendulum = Mack + far-side wing, with 10 shallow. If both wings are tied, 12 holds guard and 10 stays at the second receiver.

Technique & Triggers (so APR stays lean)

Technique: first-guard is hands first, long lever, chest square, no blast; only escalate if head-over-ball shows.

Triggers:

• Non-contest picture (like Japan gave): keep it guard-heavy/attendance-light, no dominant unless clearly needed.
• Contest flicks on: 7 upgrades guard; pull a 2/3 “pin” once away from the touchlines (front row were zero-ineff in this game — use them for the heavy clean). Australia are likely to contest heavily in the edge spaces, so our coverage has to be perfect.

Targets

• Replace ~9 guards at ≤10% inefficiency across wing+12+7. If Van Der Flier or Timoney are selected, we lose a little from the carrying rotation, but they’ll need to be hyper-focused on McReight, so it’s a trade-off worth making.

• Hold APR ≤ 2.5 (we were ~2.30 against Japan, we’ll need to duplicate that against Australia to stay on-scheme).

• Maintain ≥60% fast ball (0–3s) → preserves that ~10.75 LBR/100 ceiling we hit here.

In this match profile, we won with fast ball and guard-heavy, low-error reps, and didn’t need dominant cleans. Mack’s value lies in his second-touch counter/cross-kick threat. Keeping him out of the routine guard actions we typically load into Keenan/Osbourne allows us to convert the fast recycle into strikes without over-resourcing the ruck.