Throwing down the Gauntlet.

First topic message reminder :

Every year the Six Nations is the birth place for rising stars and the platform to showcase young talent. This six nations may have had some dire games but when looking a little closer there has have been some individuals with hard work rates, big runs, electric offloads and good vision who have brightened the most dreary of matches.

A lack-luster England survived with less possession and territory against a game Scottish side who if they had but for a little luck or a little more patience could have pulled through. On the other side of the coin we have seen an on form Welsh side with electric back line play run most defences into oblivion, their six tries in 2 matches is proof of exactly how dangerous their back line combination is.

So who has impressed? Who are the players staking a claim, the young inexperienced players who should become regular fixtures in the starting line-up for their respective countries?

David Denton age 22, 6ft 5inches 249lb
As a back rower Denton has impressed me in both games so far with his ball carrying ability. Setting up the ball in the tackle and his offloading capability, looking at his match stats of 9 passes, 35 runs, 117 meters, 2 clean breaks, 4 defenders beaten, 2 offloads, 3 turn overs, 5 tackles and 1 missed, he may be more of an attacking force than a Schalk Burger type defensive demon, but it is early stages yet and he is certain to work on his defensive work rate.

Alex Cuthbert, age 21, 6ft 6inches, 229lb
While Cuthbert may have had a quiet game against Ireland his performance against Scotland was a revelation, outshining his teammate George North in nearly every department. His match stats of 1 try, 1 try assist, 3 passes, 8 runs, 84 meters ran, 2 clean breaks, 3 defenders beaten, 1 offload, 1 turn over and 6 tackles with none missed, shows he is a playmaker with the ability to beat defenders and the necessary vision.

George North age 19, 6ft 4 inches, 229lb
Now a regular fixture in the Welsh team, his match stats of 1 try, 1 try assist, 4 passes, 11 runs, 85 meters, 1 clean break, 8 defenders beaten, 1 offload, 2 turn overs, 2 tackles and 1 missed tackle would suggest that George North is a very effective runner with ball in hand, and who can forget his incredible offload to Jonathan Davies against Ireland.

If there is one criticism of him, where there is room for improvement then it is his work rate. Granted he got injured in the Scotland match, but in 119 minutes of play, 11 runs and only 2 tackles completed would suggest that Warren Gatland needs to have a quiet word with this rising star.

Jonathan Davies, age 23, 6ft 1 inch, 227lb
The first time Davies impressed me was during the world cup. He showed an eye for a gap, an ability to wriggle out of tackles and a good turn of pace, complimenting the raw running power of Jamie Roberts well. His first two matches of the six nations have cemented that impression on me and with match stats of 2 tries, 1 try assist, 4 kicks, 10 passes, 22 runs, 156 meters, 2 clean breaks, 2 defenders beaten, 1 offload, 17 tackles and only 1 missed has shown consistency, a high work rate and sublime skills with ball in hand.


Richard Gray, age 22, 6ft 10inches, 285lb
With 8 passes, 23 runs, 89 meters, 2 clean break, 3 defenders beaten, 2 offloads, 15 tackles, 0 missed tackles and 11 line outs won Richard Gray is the quintessential modern day lock, he is tall enough to be a world class line out jumper, he is big enough to break tackles and beat defenders and his work rate makes him a very good defender. It is still early days, but what I have seen from this young man would put a smile on any Scottish coach's face.

Stuart Hogg age 19, 5ft 11 inches 194lb
Perhaps too soon to tell, but Stuart Hogg on debut came off the bench in the 15th minute of the Wales vs Scotland game and has shown very good promise for such a young lad. During the second half in particular he ran the Welsh defence ragged with match stats of 2 kicks, 2 passes, 10 runs, 82 meters, 2 clean breaks, 2 defenders beaten, 3 turn overs, 5 tackles and none missed. It would be to Scotland’s advantage to develop this young man as they need someone with his skills in a back line who all too often have shown they do not possess the necessary patience and execution to finish moves.

Ross Rennie age 25, 6ft 1 inch 213lb
Almost unnoticed Rennie has been the star of the show, his match stats of 22 passes, 31 runs, 107 meters, 4 clean breaks, 5 defenders beaten, 6 offloads, 2 turn overs, 28 tackles and only 3 missed shows that in combination with Gray and Denton, they will be the catalyst for a revival of Scottish rugby. He has an astonishing work rate, he must be close to the top of the list as far as ball carriers are concerned and yet as an additional line out option his ability is evident for all to see.

There are of course other players who have continued to impress, such as Leigh Halfpenny and Rhys Priestland, but they are old hands now, established in their squads, and this is of course not about them, but rather a celebration of the new stock, those guys that in future will be able to stake their claims on the international stage.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yep sure does..

Here you should give up btw, the evidence of your stupidity is neatly packed up in this thread for anyone to see no stats needed.

Compared to you a goldfish has an intellect that you might aspire to if you had sufficient intellect to generate an aspiration.Let's face it,you think that I consider you to be a prat and you know that you are.I actually have hope for you.I am an optimist.

Yawn.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yawn.

Don't worry mate, he looks in the mirror when he types that and then winks at himself in satisfaction.

Jeez guys. Let me start off by apologising. I think I started this mess with a general rant about the value of stats without context. And that value is zero and falls into the category of "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Drives me nuts.

However, with proper context, they tell a lot. At no time was I questioning Biltongs knowledge about Rugby or his use of numbers. Just the opposite, in fact. I enjoy his use of numbers and I know when he uses or quotes numbers, he knows exactly what he is doing and saying. And a lot of people here are the same. But there have been a number of posts where people throw out numbers as commonly as bad breath at McDonalds. That is what drove my rant.

Now that's out of the way, I have to say this is an absolute thing of beauty, a literary piece or art:

ChequeredJersey wrote:You are a human being. Ergo, you are, regardless of how impartial or fair or logical you try to be, automatically subject to a hundred biases and fallacies that you cannot ignore without conscious knowledge of them and a wish to overcome them...........contextual differences between any of their praiseworthy acts.

You should be congratulated, but my words wouldn't measure up.

biltongbek wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yawn.

Don't worry mate, he looks in the mirror when he types that and then winks at himself in satisfaction.

He seems oblivious to the fact that everyone else is probably cringing at just about every word he has said in this thread. Plus the fact his insults are literally some of the most hilariously pathetic insults that I have ever received. Ah well, they give me a good laugh

I was going to add another post about how stats and observation converge and contrast....but no, I think I'll just leave it.

The atmosphere seems to have nosedived in what could have been a pretty lively and spirited debate on players of promise and the methods used to uncover them.

SecretFly, go ahead and post, I actually want to see your opinion on the matter. Don't let other people ruin it for you (sorry if that includes me).

Fly, have your say.

Fly I have no problem if you want to disagree with my method, as long as you or anone else proves my statistical information moot to the reasoning.

Take into consideration, my method was to assess the games and I extracted the players from their performances on the pitch, and then researched their stats. so the statistics were not the qualifying criteria to be on the list, but rather to substantiate my personal percpetions of the individual players.

It is when people say you don't "get" rugby for referring to stats after a game that bugs me and others.

I'm not suprised that Norths stats look the way they do, but i don't think that it's down to work rate.

Apart from being injured in the second test, George has made a huge impression as a big physical presence and so opposition teams aim to cut him out off the game.

This, added with the fact that wingers are already positioned out of the way of most of the play, means that George would have to come off of his wing in defence a lot to have good defensive stats, but this would expose his side of the field.

As for attack, he is very much man marked and as with Jamie Roberts, is used a lot of the time as a dummy runner, or other Strike runners are used to change the point of attack.

As for the others, can't argue with who you've picked! Dave Denton especially has impressed me, seems to be a key player in putting Scotland on the front foot and getting them over the gain line at the moment and he's dragging the team forward with him! Possible future captain.

Coming late to what has turned into pie-throwingly angry thread but Biltong, as ever, well done - it was a very interesting read and as a Scotland fan am glad that you've identified the key players over the next 3 years for us.

Stats are often more useful for forwards than for backs as we can see the workrate of a backline more clearly whereas in the melee of flying bodies, it's often harder in the close contest of forward play.

But to give you an example of why they are useful for coaches, Paul Gustard at Saracens had been talking about Kelly Brown being an important target for them for some time, but apparently it was Venter being shown Brown's workrate stats for his club and international campaign for the past year which made Sarries move in quickly with their chequebook.

Thanks biltong. I was having a bad day at work but reading through this thread has given me a good laugh and cheered me up

billy, why don't you shed a light on the humorous side, perhaps I can enjoy a bit of laughter with you.

biltongbek wrote:Fly I have no problem if you want to disagree with my method, as long as you or anone else proves my statistical information moot to the reasoning.

Take into consideration, my method was to assess the games and I extracted the players from their performances on the pitch, and then researched their stats. so the statistics were not the qualifying criteria to be on the list, but rather to substantiate my personal percpetions of the individual players.

I've used your method in the past biltong and will use it again in the future. I'm not against stats and I'm not in the angry guy's corner, taking his gum shield out and rubbing the sweat off his belly with a sticky towel. I wasn't taking sides, I wasn't denigrating this article. You know your rugby, I've known you long enough to respect your views and, more importantly, to be interested in them.

My only contribution to this debate was to say on a personal level, judging players by the mostly instinctive respnses I generally (though not exclusively) rely on, I have yet to feel the excitement about Gray that is almost universal at this stage. I didn't criticise you for picking him out or the stats you used to give grounding to your views on him. Merely said that my personal instincts haven't isolated him yet as a player of distinction. A personal view that others certainly can disagree with.

And then I just tried to give two sides of the heated debate that I came onto later (and hopefully wasn't responsible for starting!) by saying instincts and context are equal to but not superior to the use of stats. I'm no stat enemy, biltong.

biltongbek wrote:billy, why don't you shed a light on the humorous side, perhaps I can enjoy a bit of laughter with you.

Well biltong, it was an excellent original post but it seems to have kicked off last night with many humerous comments. Had me laughing anyways

eirebilly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:billy, why don't you shed a light on the humorous side, perhaps I can enjoy a bit of laughter with you.

Well biltong, it was an excellent original post but it seems to have kicked off last night with many humerous comments. Had me laughing anyways

Yeah, it turned out to become a debate about what is the most dense, mud or sludge.

Yeah but i was a comical read for me this morning

I am happy to provide you some unintended comedic relief.

I will have to check my stats to see how often you provide me with comedic relief..... Ahh pish, i will just trust my eyes

eirebilly wrote:I will have to check my stats to see how often you provide me with comedic relief..... Ahh pish, i will just trust my eyes

Even I do not need stats on that, roughly every second day. Although statistics will tell us the hit rate of my posts.

biltongbek wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I will have to check my stats to see how often you provide me with comedic relief..... Ahh pish, i will just trust my eyes

Even I do not need stats on that, roughly every second day. Although statistics will tell us the hit rate of my posts.

Yeah well surely if you did need to refer to stats about comedic relief then you havent got a clue about comedy.... right?

eirebilly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I will have to check my stats to see how often you provide me with comedic relief..... Ahh pish, i will just trust my eyes

Even I do not need stats on that, roughly every second day. Although statistics will tell us the hit rate of my posts.

Yeah well surely if you did need to refer to stats about comedic relief then you havent got a clue about comedy.... right?

Is that what they call irony?

You can add Ian Evans to the Gauntlet list Bilton - Ianto has failed to live up to his billing until being given a chance here and the 6 ft 8 ins 2nd row who promised so much earyly on before injury has so far delivered this 6 Nations, interesting to see what happens when Chareteris and Bradley are back along with AWJ

I'll watch him closely next time Rubyguby.

C'mon Bilton cut the selective attention and watch this team munn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RubyGuby wrote:You can add Ian Evans to the Gauntlet list Bilton - Ianto has failed to live up to his billing until being given a chance here and the 6 ft 8 ins 2nd row who promised so much earyly on before injury has so far delivered this 6 Nations, interesting to see what happens when Chareteris and Bradley are back along with AWJ

Do you have any stats to back up this claim about Ianto?

33.7% of all posters feel that this thread has too many stats in it - just saying ...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:33.7% of all posters feel that this thread has too many stats in it - just saying ...

And I suppose that has to be a thumb suck.

RubyGuby wrote:C'mon Bilton cut the selective attention and watch this team munn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been mate, how else do you think I found those on this list. I certainly wasn't listening and reding all the biased views on here.

Dont you be after starting to support our little red friends biltong.... Green is the colour

eirebilly wrote:Dont you be after starting to support our little red friends biltong.... Green is the colour

Ummm, how do I put this without the fear of persecution.......................................



I am neutral, but my favourite colour is definitely green.

biltongbek wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Dont you be after starting to support our little red friends biltong.... Green is the colour

Ummm, how do I put this without the fear of persecution.......................................



I am neutral, but my favourite colour is definitely green.

Thats good enough for me

Oh, lookie, Mum. The green boys are making nice to each other.

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, lookie, Mum. The green boys are making nice to each other.

yeah looking back it does look a little questionable

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, lookie, Mum. The green boys are making nice to each other.

Now, now there's a good boy.

eirebilly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Oh, lookie, Mum. The green boys are making nice to each other.

yeah looking back it does look a little questionable

What did I miss?

Only the Irish and SAs know a good camouflage rugby colour when they............. well, in theory, see it!

That's why we both get so ratty when we lose. We're certain we've scored two extra tries that were never officially recognised because nobody saw them happening.... but then we can't obviously say we did score them as that would break our cover.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, damn it

Just a little too cute, Biltong. 'tis all.

Besides I want to see some good blood curdling chest thumping bewtixt the nations, not some smiley icon kissing another one. Where goes the humour (and a fair bit of frustration) if we all simply get along and respect each other? Hmmm?

Besides, yesterday I flew back to the US from my two weeks back home and I think, when here, I get more enjoyment from the 'clash of nations' than I do at home.

Nice one secret

SecretFly wrote:Only the Irish and SAs know a good camouflage rugby colour when they............. well, in theory, see it!

That's why we both get so ratty when we lose. We're certain we've scored two extra tries that were never officially recognised because nobody saw them happening.... but then we can't obviously say we did score them as that would break our cover.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, damn it

That stands to reason then that both our rugby unions should invest in genetic altering scientific research to change the colour of grass to ............. black or yellow.

Then our tries will be seen on camera, by the spectators and referees.

But one aspect of your theory astounds me, how is it that when our players are offside or commit fouls, the referees never miss that?

Thats because refs are colourblind to Red and Black when it comes to offside biltong

You know the very same thing happened to us against Italy: scored 15 tries, mostly by Ben Youngs but nobody could see them in the snow.

biltongbek wrote:
But one aspect of your theory astounds me, how is it that when our players are offside or commit fouls, the referees never miss that?

Surprised by you, biltong...thought you would be up to speed on that one. Of course the referees know when we've committed fouls.... no player ever tosses himself to the ground. It's only reasonable to assume an Irish/SA is the guy wot did the crime. As for the offside rule..simple explanation too; the ref knows that players who think they are invisible are always going to try it on. He blows his whistle automatically.

Only 15 CJ? With all those line breaks i was sure that it was at least 20

ChequeredJersey wrote:You know the very same thing happened to us against Italy: scored 15 tries, mostly by Ben Youngs but nobody could see them in the snow.

isn't it a bumber!

Nah, we put some Scots in White shirts and snuck them on and they butchered the other 5. Laidlaw's missed tackle for the Italy try was a shocker too

ChequeredJersey wrote:Nah, we put some Scots in White shirts and snuck them on and they butchered the other 5. Laidlaw's missed tackle for the Italy try was a shocker too

So this means England made no mistakes against Italy? I thought so........