Throwing down the Gauntlet.

by **Biltong** Fri 17 Feb 2012, 5:57 pm

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.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:01 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:I probably know more about the game of rugby than you.

Perhaps that is why I delve a little deeper and analyse the game more, rather than just listen to unfounded one eyed opinions.
Loathe as I am to stoop to your level of arrogance but I doubt that you know more about the game of Rugby than me.You are a Saffer so we make allowances.Perhaps you delve deeper because you seek understanding and I applaud your spirit.
Unsure what one-eyed opinions that I am particularly prone to.Living in England you'd have thought that all things Twickers would be fantastico and all the rest mucho pantso!
Enjoy your stats(the modern day clipboard for people trying to validate their position!)

Arrogance would be if I said i definitely know more about the game than you do. thumbsup

Making allowances for me? It is really appreciated. kiss

One eyed you. YES.

I do enjoy my stats thanks. Throwing down the Gauntlet. - Page 2 3933776953

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:04 pm

But those stats are flawed, they seem to assume in England games that Croft and Robshaw are the same person and attribute things between the two of them at random

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:04 pm

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, which rarely exists when applied to any assessment of something we support or hold dear. Some of these biases are useful or vital to survival asan individual or race or are by-products of processes that are and thus cannot easily be ignored. Stats allow an objective way to assess whether what we think we have perceived is in fact what happened. The stats are also open to bias but less than an individual's general memory of how one player amongst 30+ plus several officials plus interactions between units and entire teams performed across an entire pitch with and without possession, sometimes not even visible, over an 80 minute + spell. Even more objective compared to an individual with a definite bias towards one of the teams playing. This is not a criticism of you, it is however saying that you as a Welsh supporter are in a worse place to assess who played best (which is highly subjective anyway) than a neutral with no bias (which Biltong and Rory may have but probably less than someone supporting one of the teams playing) and a far worse place than statistical analysts who will be watching all of the players individually in specific moments rather than relying on a general memory (all memories are highly subjective btw) where you could not have possibly focussed enough on a comparison between players to know who should be MOTM, if indeed it is possible to select one player's contribution as more important than every other players given the qualitative and contextual differences between any of their praiseworthy acts.

Well put and wisely spoken. Thank you. I would not be able to put it that intellectual and eloquently.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:06 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:But those stats are flawed, they seem to assume in England games that Croft and Robshaw are the same person and attribute things between the two of them at random

Any statistic has the potential to be flawed, and any statistic has the potential to be manipulated. It is however an indication as you put of events we otherwise could not possibly accumulate during 80 minutes of play by memory.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:08 pm

I'm currently revising/ on here as not to revise some psychiatry/psychology, so this kind of thing was at the forefront of my mind, but thank you Smile

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:08 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Biltong,my eyes are regularly checked.Why can I not see workrate?That is precisely what Lydiate brings to the party over show-ponies like Ferris and Heaslip.Some nerdy bloke clicking a counter cannot sway me from what I have watched.
Stats that may not be 100% accurate are worth less than I deposit down the khazi!
Stats that are 100% accurate should only confirm what you have already witnessed.Totally pointless.

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, which rarely exists when applied to any assessment of something we support or hold dear. Some of these biases are useful or vital to survival asan individual or race or are by-products of processes that are and thus cannot easily be ignored. Stats allow an objective way to assess whether what we think we have perceived is in fact what happened. The stats are also open to bias but less than an individual's general memory of how one player amongst 30+ plus several officials plus interactions between units and entire teams performed across an entire pitch with and without possession, sometimes not even visible, over an 80 minute + spell. Even more objective compared to an individual with a definite bias towards one of the teams playing. This is not a criticism of you, it is however saying that you as a Welsh supporter are in a worse place to assess who played best (which is highly subjective anyway) than a neutral with no bias (which Biltong and Rory may have but probably less than someone supporting one of the teams playing) and a far worse place than statistical analysts who will be watching all of the players individually in specific moments rather than relying on a general memory (all memories are highly subjective btw) where you could not have possibly focussed enough on a comparison between players to know who should be MOTM, if indeed it is possible to select one player's contribution as more important than every other players given the qualitative and contextual differences between any of their praiseworthy acts.

Bit of a shocker.MoM award does not really matter.Just want my team to play to their individual and collective maximum ability.Never had any stats on Lomu,Sella,Gibson,Kirwain.Still managed to spot that they were giants.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:10 pm

biltongbek wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:But those stats are flawed, they seem to assume in England games that Croft and Robshaw are the same person and attribute things between the two of them at random

Any statistic has the potential to be flawed, and any statistic has the potential to be manipulated. It is however an indication as you put of events we otherwise could not possibly accumulate during 80 minutes of play by memory.

Yep. And once you have the statistics you can apply facts or perceptions you have to them and make a judgement call based on using both. Not just disregarding the stats because they disagree with you. If tehy disagree with you, we have to work out why. Pretty basic logic, I thought, but it is easy to ignore if you (I mean one, not you personally when I say this of course) are emotionally invested in the topic being analysed

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:11 pm

Taffin are you being ignorant or are you trying to entice an argument.

I didn't look at the stats and then decided they had great games.

I watched the games, in fact all of them so far, and these players impressed e during the games. THAT is how i started this thread.

Is it just that you don't want to understand, or what?

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:14 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:But those stats are flawed, they seem to assume in England games that Croft and Robshaw are the same person and attribute things between the two of them at random

Any statistic has the potential to be flawed, and any statistic has the potential to be manipulated. It is however an indication as you put of events we otherwise could not possibly accumulate during 80 minutes of play by memory.

Yep. And once you have the statistics you can apply facts or perceptions you have to them and make a judgement call based on using both. Not just disregarding the stats because they disagree with you. If they disagree with you, we have to work out why. Pretty basic logic, I thought, but it is easy to ignore if you (I mean one, not you personally when I say this of course) are emotionally invested in the topic being analysed

Absolutely, I often find a statistic that would disagree with my initial stand point and then have to revise my own perception about a player or team.

Sometimes whe it is your own player it can be disappointing, but it does tend to assist with being more objective.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:14 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Biltong,my eyes are regularly checked.Why can I not see workrate?That is precisely what Lydiate brings to the party over show-ponies like Ferris and Heaslip.Some nerdy bloke clicking a counter cannot sway me from what I have watched.
Stats that may not be 100% accurate are worth less than I deposit down the khazi!
Stats that are 100% accurate should only confirm what you have already witnessed.Totally pointless.

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, which rarely exists when applied to any assessment of something we support or hold dear. Some of these biases are useful or vital to survival asan individual or race or are by-products of processes that are and thus cannot easily be ignored. Stats allow an objective way to assess whether what we think we have perceived is in fact what happened. The stats are also open to bias but less than an individual's general memory of how one player amongst 30+ plus several officials plus interactions between units and entire teams performed across an entire pitch with and without possession, sometimes not even visible, over an 80 minute + spell. Even more objective compared to an individual with a definite bias towards one of the teams playing. This is not a criticism of you, it is however saying that you as a Welsh supporter are in a worse place to assess who played best (which is highly subjective anyway) than a neutral with no bias (which Biltong and Rory may have but probably less than someone supporting one of the teams playing) and a far worse place than statistical analysts who will be watching all of the players individually in specific moments rather than relying on a general memory (all memories are highly subjective btw) where you could not have possibly focussed enough on a comparison between players to know who should be MOTM, if indeed it is possible to select one player's contribution as more important than every other players given the qualitative and contextual differences between any of their praiseworthy acts.
Bit of a shocker.MoM award does not really matter.Just want my team to play to their individual and collective maximum ability.Never had any stats on Lomu,Sella,Gibson,Kirwain.Still managed to spot that they were giants.

No but you can't disregard them either. Some misguided people try and claim that Johnny Wilkinson wasn't a great player but we can partially demonstrate that he is with stats. Obviously greatness is in the eye of the beholder to some degree but sometimes objective facts can be as useful as opinions. I don't like the way Jonathan Trott bats but I would be a moron to say he wasn't a good batsman because the evidence is against me

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:16 pm

Taff read this as carefully as you can. I will try and put this simply for such a simple mind as your own.

People refer to stats AFTER a game to help give them some added insight onto how players did individually or how a team did. For example, stats show how much territory a team has had, how many tackles made/missed, how many passes made, lots of different aspects of the game. It is interesting/useful information.

Are you really that stupid to think that biltong's list is based on the stats? That he looked at the stats and picked the players from that? He is clearly going by what he has seen in these games, and is using the stats to back up what he has seen. Use your head for goodness sake before spouting your rubbish for everyone to see.

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:20 pm

Must confess that I am at a loss.Are you now saying that you seek reassurance from these stats to confirm what you saw?What has caused you to doubt yourself if you are the font of all Rugby wisdom?Have faith.
As with the yougster Rory,if stats comfort you then embrace them.
If I was employed by Scotland RFU Rennie's yardage,tackle % age etc would be my bread and butter.As a spectator these stats are nothing but a sideshow.
Understand or do YOU choose not to?Moral high ground is open to all,you know.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:22 pm

Oh my word. Laugh

I give up like, I don't think this guy has a clue!

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:22 pm

Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand. Doh

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:24 pm

I'll try one more time, to see if this guy has a brain cell. Taff, why do you think a coach may refer to statistics after a game/training? Why would he use them do you think?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:25 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:Must confess that I am at a loss.Are you now saying that you seek reassurance from these stats to confirm what you saw?What has caused you to doubt yourself if you are the font of all Rugby wisdom?Have faith.
As with the yougster Rory,if stats comfort you then embrace them.
If I was employed by Scotland RFU Rennie's yardage,tackle % age etc would be my bread and butter.As a spectator these stats are nothing but a sideshow.
Understand or do YOU choose not to?Moral high ground is open to all,you know.

Surely you wish to assess your own appraisal of rugby matches and so other people's opinions and stats are the main ways of doing that? Otherwise you would be happy to be wrong as long as you didn't find out about it and show no motivation to self-improve? Which is something we should all aim to do

by slartibartfast Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:25 pm

Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

by Guest Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:28 pm

slartibartfast wrote:Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

Don't worry, there are stats to prove that most of you are good, sensible chaps Wink

Stats should be our friend. They are not cheating. Just as having a blood transfusion after being hit by a car is just, erm... common sense.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:29 pm

slartibartfast wrote:Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

Off the top of my head I'd say it might be because he doesn't need to. If he doesn't have to make the tackles, unless there is a broken field cover to make, it would be silly to move out of position to make extra tackles as a winger and JD2 and Roberts are as solid a defence as you will see and the Welsh rush defence means they are likely to make far more tackles than the wings. On the carries I don't know, I don't know a lot about back play in attack

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:29 pm

Let us ignore statistics for the purpose of this exercise.

If I was to report on George North regarding the two matches Wales have played and in my report I would say the guy has vision for running into a gap, having the ability to be on the inside line of the offload at speed and when he has the ball he has enough speed to run around most defences to such an extent that he can draw more than one player, and then with a well timed offload can out his support runners into the gap.

That woud be correct.

Then everyone will sing his praises regarding his ability with ball in hand.

Becuase wales have given away onyl a few tries, his defensive abilities and workrate will most likely not even be discussed as there is no apparent reason to question him.

So the report will not be very reliable, because I have not checked or verified his perfomrance with the match statistics. Only when I read the match statistics did I see how few tackles he has made.

Now for a young guy that is something his coach needs to discuss with him, as I said in the OP.

That gives my article and assessment of North more credibility, or do you still disagree.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:31 pm

I wonder if the fact that not one person actually agrees with him might spark off a little hint in his mind that he might actually be talking complete rubbish. That could just be false hope though.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:34 pm

slartibartfast wrote:Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

Also good call especially with regards to forwards play. How is someone who hasn't played in the forwards meant to assess a 7's contribution to the game just by watching? You can't possibly see what the majority of the specialist work they are doing, you just have to assume by the amount of possession you get

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:36 pm

I don't entirely agree with that. When an openside is at work it can be very noticeable at times. Rennie's work was quite noticeable. McCaw often just pops up with the ball, as does Pocock etc.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:36 pm

slartibartfast wrote:Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

Thanks Slartibartfast. thumbsup

I can check for you, but didn't North play left wing and Cuthbert right wing?

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:41 pm

biltongbek wrote:Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand.

I know that you are only pretending to be dumb.Even though I will try again.
To have any value a stat MUST be accurate.You admit that some are suspect.(Faletau's 100% tackle count at WC).WHY BOTHER?????????????????
If it makes you feel like some nintendo team manager game thingee whoopee.Trainspottting numbercrunching bull will not alter things.
At the end of any championship only one stat matters.If you are too dense to see this I despair.All the other stuff is flim flam.
McBride churns out our lineout stats,he keeps his job as do the Welsh 8 despite the stats being pants for years.What is the point?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:43 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't entirely agree with that. When an openside is at work it can be very noticeable at times. Rennie's work was quite noticeable. McCaw often just pops up with the ball, as does Pocock etc.

It can be, but with players like Neil Best and even Warbs, a lot of their work is not visible.

by SecretFly Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:44 pm

Rugby, like all walks of life, has its types and it's specialists in one field or another. The issues here are merely different slants on the same game.

You ask a few players how they think their stats went for the game they'd just played and I'm sure a sizeable number of them would glaze over and tell you they were too busy trying to play their game to worry about the number of specific things they were getting right or wrong.

You ask a coach the same question about a player and I'm equally certain, after he's been given sufficient time to digest said stats, he'd come forward with detailed synopsis of where the player excelled and where he might need to improve.

Has coach or player the wrong attitude to the game? No, neither of them have...just diffierent approaches to measuring performance.

We observers are also very different from each other and love the sport for our own reasons. Some like the big overview and rate games very much on immediate perceptions about overall patterns...others look at each game in replay many times and call up stats on individual players they are interested in to form theories about how the player is developing or otherwise.

Some like to discuss the cause and effect of individual players in a side. Others like to place more emphasis on coaching standards. Some like to talk backs, others much prefer forwards. Some love the rugby law debates, others like to concentrate on tribal rivalry

Just because we all watch the same sport doesn't mean we all have the same hobby... if you get my meaning. There's room for all of us..... I hope.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:46 pm

I get your drift Fly, perhaps you need to expplain that to Taffin.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:47 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand.
I know that you are only pretending to be dumb.Even though I will try again.
To have any value a stat MUST be accurate.You admit that some are suspect.(Faletau's 100% tackle count at WC).WHY BOTHER?????????????????
If it makes you feel like some nintendo team manager game thingee whoopee.Trainspottting numbercrunching bull will not alter things.
At the end of any championship only one stat matters.If you are too dense to see this I despair.All the other stuff is flim flam.
McBride churns out our lineout stats,he keeps his job as do the Welsh 8 despite the stats being pants for years.What is the point?

So you know who to pick in the future for various teams including the Lions? So you have a better idea of what every player adds and thus how to utilise them? So you know what the players' weaknesses are and how to exploit others' and work on your own? It may not be of any benefit to us, but then neither is knowing who is a good player. It's interesting to have a view-point however, that's why we are all on here (except for WUMS) and stats help people to hone their viewpoints and assess whether ours are fair

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:48 pm

The real question here is not whether anyone agrees with the stats or even whether they pay attention to the stats.

I picked 6 players who impressed me, the stats verify my opinions, you either agree these six pllayers have impressed or you dont.

End of.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:49 pm

I think they have all been very good

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:49 pm

SecretFly wrote:Rugby, like all walks of life, has its types and it's specialists in one field or another. The issues here are merely different slants on the same game.

You ask a few players how they think their stats went for the game they'd just played and I'm sure a sizeable number of them would glaze over and tell you they were too busy trying to play their game to worry about the number of specific things they were getting right or wrong.

You ask a coach the same question about a player and I'm equally certain, after he's been given sufficient time to digest said stats, he'd come forward with detailed synopsis of where the player excelled and where he might need to improve.

Has coach or player the wrong attitude to the game? No, neither of them have...just diffierent approaches to measuring performance.

We observers are also very different from each other and love the sport for our own reasons. Some like the big overview and rate games very much on immediate perceptions about overall patterns...others look at each game in replay many times and call up stats on individual players they are interested in to form theories about how the player is developing or otherwise.

Some like to discuss the cause and effect of individual players in a side. Others like to place more emphasis on coaching standards. Some like to talk backs, others much prefer forwards. Some love the rugby law debates, others like to concentrate on tribal rivalry

Just because we all watch the same sport doesn't mean we all have the same hobby... if you get my meaning. There's room for all of us..... I hope.
Very sensible post.If Heaslip hangs about on the wing and ends up scoring a winning try he appears to be a hero.His backrow team mats might tell a different tale.The stats?Who cares??

by SecretFly Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:50 pm

Well biltong,...I hope he's listening too.

But then maybe he doesn't enjoy my chosen specialist subject in rugby..................... yep, you all guessed it, bullshittin' ! Wink

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:51 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand.
I know that you are only pretending to be dumb.Even though I will try again.
To have any value a stat MUST be accurate.You admit that some are suspect.(Faletau's 100% tackle count at WC).WHY BOTHER?????????????????
If it makes you feel like some nintendo team manager game thingee whoopee.Trainspottting numbercrunching bull will not alter things.
At the end of any championship only one stat matters.If you are too dense to see this I despair.All the other stuff is flim flam.
McBride churns out our lineout stats,he keeps his job as do the Welsh 8 despite the stats being pants for years.What is the point?

Well Taff why bother giving us your opinion then since it is susceptible to being wrong? I don't really trust the all seeing eyes of someone who thinks Ferris and Heaslip are showboaters, specifically Ferris. Or someone who gets their knickers in a twist just because somebody doesn't think Lydiate deserved to win MOM in a game, and that plenty of players were better than he was. Also you never answered my question. Why do you think coaches use stats after a game/training, when they are trying to see where they can improve?

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:51 pm

Can you just miss the g off the end and pretend that wasn't a swear word?

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:52 pm

Taff I don't know why you are quoting SecretFly when you are the one who very arrogantly stated that those who refer to stats do not get the game of rugby.

by SecretFly Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:53 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can you just miss the g off the end and pretend that wasn't a swear word?

I just found that out with a little courage.... I suppose the hounds will sniff it out and repair that loophole.

by slartibartfast Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:54 pm

biltongbek wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:Biltongbek

good article - probably one of the best I've read for a while. Please keep it up and don't assume all Welsh are blinking morons. He may not need stats to name Lomu, Sella etc - but I bet he can't name a forward who provided the clean ball or turn over tackle to allow them to get the glory try

One thing on North's work rate, is it becuase of the right wing position I wonder? could you compare his stats to other 14s?

Thanks Slartibartfast. I can check for you, but didn't North play left wing and Cuthbert right wing?

Sorry, left wing! I was looking at it from a defenders point of view Whistle

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:54 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can you just miss the g off the end and pretend that wasn't a swear word?

apparently yes.

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:56 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand.
I know that you are only pretending to be dumb.Even though I will try again.
To have any value a stat MUST be accurate.You admit that some are suspect.(Faletau's 100% tackle count at WC).WHY BOTHER?????????????????
If it makes you feel like some nintendo team manager game thingee whoopee.Trainspottting numbercrunching bull will not alter things.
At the end of any championship only one stat matters.If you are too dense to see this I despair.All the other stuff is flim flam.
McBride churns out our lineout stats,he keeps his job as do the Welsh 8 despite the stats being pants for years.What is the point?

So you know who to pick in the future for various teams including the Lions? So you have a better idea of what every player adds and thus how to utilise them? So you know what the players' weaknesses are and how to exploit others' and work on your own? It may not be of any benefit to us, but then neither is knowing who is a good player. It's interesting to have a view-point however, that's why we are all on here (except for WUMS) and stats help people to hone their viewpoints and assess whether ours are fair

You have touched on a very interesting selection issue.As all teams play differently to try and incorporate random players into a new entity is a major challenge.It is for this reason that units rather than individuals are considered by and large.BOD and Roberts worked well together last time.Stats would not have predicted this but understanding and chemistry got there.

by ChequeredJersey Sun 19 Feb 2012, 9:58 pm

That's where you combine what you objectively know about the players in question with what you subjectively can guess about their interaction with each other based on rugby knowledge and judgement, so the stats behind it are still useful! Though I personally do prefer selecting units for the very reason you mentioned

by Hound_of_Harrow Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:00 pm

Zanni and Masi of Italy have also impressed me. But I don't have the stats to back up that statement.

Whistle

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:03 pm

I think Zanni is a class player actually. However I don't think anyone played particularly well in that England game from either side. Masi I didn't think was great either.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:04 pm

Combinations are vital within specific units.

When looking at backrowers most definitely.

When looking at a flyhalf, his statistics are vital.

A coach would want to know his kicking percentages. He would want to know how many times the player made kicking arrors from hand.

He would look at general play, does the fly half stand flat, does he stand deep, how much time does he take to kick, pass, run he will look at his defensive errors, his technique of each of these areas.

Thus he would look at the player and his skills, his technique and his stats.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:05 pm

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:Zanni and Masi of Italy have also impressed me. But I don't have the stats to back up that statement.

They haven't impressed me enough to pull their stats out, yet. Wink

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:13 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Holy .......... you are dense. The statistics verify and sometimes prove my initial perception of a player either correct or incorrect, what is it that you don't understand.
I know that you are only pretending to be dumb.Even though I will try again.
To have any value a stat MUST be accurate.You admit that some are suspect.(Faletau's 100% tackle count at WC).WHY BOTHER?????????????????
If it makes you feel like some nintendo team manager game thingee whoopee.Trainspottting numbercrunching bull will not alter things.
At the end of any championship only one stat matters.If you are too dense to see this I despair.All the other stuff is flim flam.
McBride churns out our lineout stats,he keeps his job as do the Welsh 8 despite the stats being pants for years.What is the point?

Well Taff why bother giving us your opinion then since it is susceptible to being wrong? I don't really trust the all seeing eyes of someone who thinks Ferris and Heaslip are showboaters, specifically Ferris. Or someone who gets their knickers in a twist just because somebody doesn't think Lydiate deserved to win MOM in a game, and that plenty of players were better than he was. Also you never answered my question. Why do you think coaches use stats after a game/training, when they are trying to see where they can improve?

In answer to your burning question re coaches and stats,with particular regard to Wales' lineout for the last 10 years:I have no idea.You may well have proved my point.
Re Lydiate's MoM award.It was you that complained about it.Jiffy factored in that Lydiate was returning after a long lay-off.The stats wouldnt have factored this and intelligence was required.This is where you fell away.You will learn,dont be disheartened you will get it eventually. laughing

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:23 pm

I think if you recall correctly, I said he didn't deserve MOM and you started bitching/moaning.

Yeah sorry, my perfect stats didn't mention Lydiate returned from a long lay-off and that was why he wasn't as good as the other candidates. My mistake, I should listen to Jiffy from now on. MOM should also from now on factor in sob stories, like injury lay-offs or personal troubles, to explain why a player wasn't as good as the other options. Ah if only I had your intelligence. I have no idea how I am going to get to sleep tonight.

by Taffineastbourne Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:26 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think if you recall correctly, I said he didn't deserve MOM and you started bitching/moaning.

Yeah sorry, my perfect stats didn't mention Lydiate returned from a long lay-off and that was why he wasn't as good as the other candidates. My mistake, I should listen to Jiffy from now on. MOM should also from now on factor in sob stories, like injury lay-offs or personal troubles, to explain why a player wasn't as good as the other options. Ah if only I had your intelligence. I have no idea how I am going to get to sleep tonight.

Being dim must help,surely??? Wink

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:28 pm

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 thumbsup

no stats needed.

by **Biltong** Sun 19 Feb 2012, 10:35 pm

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.

by Sponsored content