Six nations stats so far

by maestegmafia Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

From Planet Rugby website

With all six teams now having played three games we can compare the Official Match Data gathered from the nine matches contested so far.

Championship leaders Wales have made, and missed, the most tackles but Scotland and England have the worst tackle completion stats at 91 percent compared to Ireland's 96 percent.

Indeed, the men in green have amazing defensive numbers having missed just 14 tackles in 240 minutes of rugby.

It terms of style of play, there is perhaps no more telling statistic than the 'passes completed': Scotland have pass the ball 704 times compared to Wales, who are next with 489, or England, who passed the least with 382.

England do however have the best kicking numbers with a strike rate of 80 percent thanks to Owen Farrell's accurate boot, unlike Italy who have missed exactly half their attempts at goal!

Scotland have also made the most line-breaks and won the most possession in the opposition's 22, which will be terribly frustrating for coach Andy Robinson since they have also score the least points.

One area that Robinson will be happy with is the line-outs where Scotland have won 33 and have yet to lose one on their own throw in.

Wales have successfully mauled the ball just four times in three games while it seems to be a favourite tactic for the French, who have mauled it up no less than 15 times.

The French have looked to keep ball in hand the most, kicking just 51 times while England have put ball to boot the most.

England are the least dangerous team on attack by some distance having made just three line-breaks and scored just two tries in three matches. With games against the tournament's two best defensive teams - Ireland and France - left on the menu, Stuart Lancaster's men a have a lot of work to do.

Statistics after three rounds

Most tackles made: Wales - 371
Most tackles missed: Wales - 34
Most passes completed: Scotland - 704
Most line breaks: Scotland - 14
Most possession kicked: England - 81
Most turnovers won: Ireland - 16
Most offloads in tackle: Scotland - 38
Most errors made: Italy / Scotland - 36
Most penalties conceded: Wales - 32

Fewest tackles missed: Ireland - 14
Fewest errors made: Wales - 32
Fewest penalties conceded: France - 16

Most points scored: Ireland - 80
Most tries scored: Ireland - 9
Fewest tries conceded: Wales - 3

Most tries conceded: Italy - 10
Fewest tries scored: England - 2
Fewest points scored: Scotland - 36

Most points scored (player): Leigh Halfpenny (Wal) - 44
Most tries scored (player): Tommy Bowe (Ire) - 5

France 17 - 17 Ireland

Having had the worst line-out stats in the first two rounds, France turned the tables on their visitors, stealing three Irish line-outs.

But the stat the Irish will be ruing the most will be the 'penalties conceded' column where the gave away almost three-times as many as the French.

Of course les Bleus will point to the 0-from-2 drops goal attempts from Lionel Beauxis....just one would have been enough for victory.

Possession:
France: 50%
Ireland: 50%

Territory:
France: 56%
Ireland: 44%

Penalties conceded:
France: 4
Ireland: 11

Passes completed:
France: 155
Ireland: 113

Line breaks:
France: 2
Ireland: 2

Ruck and drive v Ruck and pass:
France: 41 - 46
Ireland: 32 - 36

Scrums lost - Line-outs lost:
France: 0 - 0
Ireland: 0 - 3

Ball won in open play - in opposition 22 - in set pieces - in turnovers:
France: 93 - 16 - 32 - 1
Ireland: 69 - 22 - 12 - 4

Possession kicked - Kicks to touch - Percentage kicks
France: 17 - 2 - 32%
Ireland: 18 - 3 - 42%

Tackles made - tackles missed - tackle completion
France: 80 - 4 - 95%
Ireland: 112 - 4 - 96%

Total errors made - errors from kicks:
France: 6 - 2
Ireland: 9 - 1

by slartibartfast Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:11 pm

SecretFly wrote:
nathan wrote:
SecretFly wrote:They either 'do' or the 'don't'... I would have thought.

Not really, for instance the condition of the ground in Englands first two games was pretty bad which was always going to mean more kicking than running.

Yes, but then there are always extraneous conditions that will take away from the merit of using stats to prove a point. And if you can't use a stat to prove a point without arguments being put forward to the contrary, well then that kinda means stats by definition are meaningless.

They either mean something by being faultless or mean nothing by being eternally fallible.

Blimey

by SecretFly Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:21 pm

slartibartfast wrote:
Blimey

You heard it here first, slarti! Wink

by Smirnoffpriest Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:28 pm

miteyironpaw wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
miteyironpaw wrote:Biltong, you wouldn't be baiting after weilding the red pen on the subject would you?

Mitey there is a distinct difference between humorous teasing and blatant enticement.

I know. When I do it it's called blatant enticement. When you do it with a [MODERATOR] stamp, it's called humourous teasing.

Soz I must have missed any of your humorous posts Whistle

by slartibartfast Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:35 pm

SecretFly wrote:
slartibartfast wrote:
Blimey

You heard it here first, slarti!

Impressive thumbsup

by Taffineastbourne Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:02 pm

SecretFly wrote:
nathan wrote:
SecretFly wrote:They either 'do' or the 'don't'... I would have thought.

Not really, for instance the condition of the ground in Englands first two games was pretty bad which was always going to mean more kicking than running.

Yes, but then there are always extraneous conditions that will take away from the merit of using stats to prove a point. And if you can't use a stat to prove a point without arguments being put forward to the contrary, well then that kinda means stats by definition are meaningless.

They either mean something by being faultless or mean nothing by being eternally fallible.

Secret,what is it with this heresy?You,like my good self will be deemed a Luddite!
Stats show that Faletau works like a Trojan.Quelle surprise!Would never have spotted this with my own eyes.

by **Biltong** Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:04 pm

Oh boy, I dreaded the moment Taffin was going to meet his kindred spirit. Whistle

by maestegmafia Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
nathan wrote:
SecretFly wrote:They either 'do' or the 'don't'... I would have thought.

Not really, for instance the condition of the ground in Englands first two games was pretty bad which was always going to mean more kicking than running.

Yes, but then there are always extraneous conditions that will take away from the merit of using stats to prove a point. And if you can't use a stat to prove a point without arguments being put forward to the contrary, well then that kinda means stats by definition are meaningless.

They either mean something by being faultless or mean nothing by being eternally fallible.
Secret,what is it with this heresy?You,like my good self will be deemed a Luddite!
Stats show that Faletau works like a Trojan.Quelle surprise!Would never have spotted this with my own eyes.

We all see his effort and the results of it, but on top of that the stats are OUTSTANDING ...! Truly remarkable. Particularly the RWC stat of highest tackler in the competition with no missed tackles...!

by Taffineastbourne Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:09 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
nathan wrote:
SecretFly wrote:They either 'do' or the 'don't'... I would have thought.

Not really, for instance the condition of the ground in Englands first two games was pretty bad which was always going to mean more kicking than running.

Yes, but then there are always extraneous conditions that will take away from the merit of using stats to prove a point. And if you can't use a stat to prove a point without arguments being put forward to the contrary, well then that kinda means stats by definition are meaningless.

They either mean something by being faultless or mean nothing by being eternally fallible.
Secret,what is it with this heresy?You,like my good self will be deemed a Luddite!
Stats show that Faletau works like a Trojan.Quelle surprise!Would never have spotted this with my own eyes.

We all see his effort and the results of it, but on top of that the stats are OUTSTANDING ...! Truly remarkable. Particularly the RWC stat of highest tackler in the competition with no missed tackles...!

Maes,I dont need stats to tell me he is outstanding,especially stats that I cannot believe.

by maestegmafia Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:14 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
nathan wrote:
SecretFly wrote:They either 'do' or the 'don't'... I would have thought.

Not really, for instance the condition of the ground in Englands first two games was pretty bad which was always going to mean more kicking than running.

Yes, but then there are always extraneous conditions that will take away from the merit of using stats to prove a point. And if you can't use a stat to prove a point without arguments being put forward to the contrary, well then that kinda means stats by definition are meaningless.

They either mean something by being faultless or mean nothing by being eternally fallible.
Secret,what is it with this heresy?You,like my good self will be deemed a Luddite!
Stats show that Faletau works like a Trojan.Quelle surprise!Would never have spotted this with my own eyes.

We all see his effort and the results of it, but on top of that the stats are OUTSTANDING ...! Truly remarkable. Particularly the RWC stat of highest tackler in the competition with no missed tackles...!
Maes,I dont need stats to tell me he is outstanding,especially stats that I cannot believe.

Back in the old days mate there was never a guy on the wireless counting tackles and passes. You should have been born in another era my friend...

by SecretFly Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:21 pm

I think this site tonight is like that scene from Batman Begins...where all the nuts escape the nuthouse and mayhem ensues.

You can't breathe here today for fear of being pointed out as a Witch!

by Taffineastbourne Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:23 pm

If you are older than 58,I bow to you.Trust me there were no stattos to tell me Haydn Morgan and Alun Pask were special players!My eyes did just fine.

by Gibson Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:23 pm

Excellent post Maesteg. Stats tell so much about the games played. Fascinating stuff. Except they sometimes can confound the very thing that actually matters. The Result.

by Gibson Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:I think this site tonight is like that scene from Batman Begins...where all the nuts escape the nuthouse and mayhem ensues.

You can't breathe here today for fear of being pointed out as a Witch!

Well I wouldn't say Witch perse... Warlock?

by Taffineastbourne Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:26 pm

Am I going mad?Maes,you appear to be agreeing and arguing at the same time!Have you any Irish blood?

by Guest Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:28 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
We all see his effort and the results of it, but on top of that the stats are OUTSTANDING ...! Truly remarkable. Particularly the RWC stat of highest tackler in the competition with no missed tackles...!

He has missed two this tournament (it looked about two on Walesonline t'other day), the slacker laughing

by maestegmafia Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:52 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:Am I going mad?Maes,you appear to be agreeing and arguing at the same time!Have you any Irish blood?

No I have an Irish wife.

Difficult one as from a fans point of view I like and dislike stats, some prove interesting reading others are merely accounting.

I often disregard opinions purely based on stats as pointless, as they invariably are inaccurately curtailed to point of reason.

Within sport statistics and their correct usage has changed sport remarkably, and our enjoyment of all sports is the much the better for it.

Professionally I have made most of my career out of manufacturing and selling sports statics software to everyone from rugby unions and clubs to the NFL and the Americas Cup, so it has always done well for me financially speaking.

But like any form of input it is always important to use it as a tool and not a defining line.

Most modern coaches love stats, but there are always a few players in teams who are there against what the stats say.

by Taffineastbourne Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:16 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Am I going mad?Maes,you appear to be agreeing and arguing at the same time!Have you any Irish blood?

No I have an Irish wife.

Difficult one as from a fans point of view I like and dislike stats, some prove interesting reading others are merely accounting.

I often disregard opinions purely based on stats as pointless, as they invariably are inaccurately curtailed to point of reason.

Within sport statistics and their correct usage has changed sport remarkably, and our enjoyment of all sports is the much the better for it.

Professionally I have made most of my career out of manufacturing and selling sports statics software to everyone from rugby unions and clubs to the NFL and the Americas Cup, so it has always done well for me financially speaking.

But like any form of input it is always important to use it as a tool and not a defining line.

Most modern coaches love stats, but there are always a few players in teams who are there against what the stats say.

I would dispute that stats have raised enjoyment levels.I used to be totally enraptured by Rugby and would be virtually catatonic during an International.I now find myself making tea and tidying the kitchen during games.Pundits spewing out %age this and %age that may be fine in helping people with eyesight problems but to the sighted viewer it is pretty pointless in the main.

by maestegmafia Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:48 pm

What i meant was that the games have been improved now that coaches and their teams have so much more information on how there players are performing in matches and in training. That has improved the game, therefor improved enjoyment. Not that the marronic meandering conversation of pundits quoting percentages were raising anyone's enjoyment.

Oh for the days of Bill McClaren and Cliff Morgan, truly great commentators.

by SecretFly Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:00 am

maestegmafia wrote:What i meant was that the games have been improved now that coaches and their teams have so much more information on how there players are performing in matches and in training. That has improved the game, therefor improved enjoyment. Not that the marronic meandering conversation of pundits quoting percentages were raising anyone's enjoyment.

Oh for the days of Bill McClaren and Cliff Morgan, truly great commentators.

I don't want to be argumentative but I suppose I am being...it's just I don't see the emergence of stats (and I'm not against them. They can be insightful and I've used them in the past and will do so in future) but I don't see them as being the factor in improving the game. The game has improved because it simply has. Players have become stronger, fitter, sharper and the game turned professional. I'm actually glad I've found someone that admits that the game now is better than in the old days. You can get your romantics who say the quality has died away since the 70s. I was young in the 70s but I watched rugby back then and I know a lot of it by today's standards was rubbish.

The game has improved through professionalism and I'd say the stats weren't responsible for that but became requirements to sustain that, when players became employees and CVs and contract deals need scientific data to prove a modern player's worth.

by maestegmafia Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:53 am

SecretFly wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:What i meant was that the games have been improved now that coaches and their teams have so much more information on how there players are performing in matches and in training. That has improved the game, therefor improved enjoyment. Not that the marronic meandering conversation of pundits quoting percentages were raising anyone's enjoyment.

Oh for the days of Bill McClaren and Cliff Morgan, truly great commentators.

I don't want to be argumentative but I suppose I am being...it's just I don't see the emergence of stats (and I'm not against them. They can be insightful and I've used them in the past and will do so in future) but I don't see them as being the factor in improving the game. The game has improved because it simply has. Players have become stronger, fitter, sharper and the game turned professional. I'm actually glad I've found someone that admits that the game now is better than in the old days. You can get your romantics who say the quality has died away since the 70s. I was young in the 70s but I watched rugby back then and I know a lot of it by today's standards was rubbish.

The game has improved through professionalism and I'd say the stats weren't responsible for that but became requirements to sustain that, when players became employees and CVs and contract deals need scientific data to prove a modern player's worth.

Professionalism is sports analysis, stats are a huge part of that. Teaching coaches and conditioners where to work players and how, that is the same in all sports.

Stats were a big part even in the seventies, Carwyn James used plenty of statistics to win in NZ. Many am era coaches swiftly followed suit.

by Irishhoneymonster Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:11 am

Talking of stats from an Irish perspective, it's interesting if you look at DOC's stats compared to D.Ryan's. They're practically identical and yet Ryan was only on the field for 22 mins. Same number of tackles (8 with 0 missed), same number of lineouts won (1). Only difference is that DOC passed once and Ryan didn't and that DOC ran one more time than Ryan.

Oh and Ryan ran (or gained is it?) 1 metre to DOC's 0. This according to Espnscrum which I realise could be BS. Still is interesting (especially the tackle stat) all the same, well kind of Smile

by Irishhoneymonster Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:13 am

Having said all that I realise that there's likely to be alot of unseen work that the stats don't pick up!

by Irishhoneymonster Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:15 am

Oh and by the way I'm talking about the stats for the French match!

by slartibartfast Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:08 am

As I've said before, some stats are useful, some are pointless.

It's all about context and purpose.

It will be a sad day when a player gets dropped because his tackles missed are yards gained is below the national average.

Take the IRB rankings... They become very useful to back up a wum. But sometimes, if say Wales are going to play Argentina, I find myself thinking, I wonder where Argentina are in the rankings. Just as a form guide.

As a blinkered welsh fan I make subjective decisions on players, sometimes it's useful To have an objective stat to back me up!

by **Biltong** Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:53 am

slarti, I tend to ignore world Rankings when looking at the from guide.

When we are going to play a team, I check up on our recent meetings, who scored tries, who won, who isn't playing.

I find that a lot more accurate than the rankings.

Argentina could go through this whole four nations champoinship not gaining any points due to the teams they have to compete with. If you were to look at rankings it may suggest by the end of the four nations they are poor, but 6 matches against SA, OZ and NZ is definitely going to improve and harden their players. so the rankings will give a totally false impression on how good Argentina may be. Wink

by GunsGerms Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:06 pm

I reckon the Argies will get one win in Argentina.

by **Biltong** Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:37 am

It's not impossible. But considering that this will be their toughest 6 weeks they will have ever faced, the longer it continues, the harder it is going to get for them.

by eirebilly Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:53 am

I expect Argentina to pick up a win in Argentina but not much else. I think that its fantastic for them that they are now a part of that. Its not so good for us NH teams as the SH teams will drag Argentina to a higher standard i feel.

by Feckless Rogue Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:37 pm

I don't think Argentina will win any games, maybe for quite a number of years. They're not even as good as they were in 2007. They're maybe slightly better than Scotland.

by SecretFly Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:27 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:I don't think Argentina will win any games, maybe for quite a number of years. They're not even as good as they were in 2007. They're maybe slightly better than Scotland.

Iffy time of the year to be talking about Scotland being worse than Argentina! Scotland now beats us fair and square, where does that leave us?

by Gibson Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:05 pm

Same as we were before, 3 years down the road? Or worse even?

by Feckless Rogue Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:44 pm

Ireland have the most points scored, most tries, and best points difference. And both Wales and Ireland have played Scotland and Italy now.

Still won't be much comfort to me as I jealously watch Wales/France lift the trophy next week.

by Cymroglan Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:47 pm

Do the points against count when they work out the average scores ?

by Feckless Rogue Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:59 pm

The average scores?

by Cymroglan Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:05 pm

Points needed by a side to win the championship if sides are on equal wins.

by Feckless Rogue Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:22 pm

It's decided on points difference. The total scored minus the total conceded. Ireland lost out on points difference a few times to France, after winning four from five. Now we have the best points difference but we only have one win. Crying or Very sad

by eirebilly Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:24 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:It's decided on points difference. The total scored minus the total conceded. Ireland lost out on points difference a few times to France, after winning four from five. Now we have the best points difference but we only have one win.

?

by Feckless Rogue Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:25 pm

Woops. Typo. W only have two wins Crying or Very sad

by eirebilly Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:26 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote:Woops. Typo. W only have two wins

by 123456789 Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:28 pm

maestegmafia wrote:From Planet Rugby website

Most errors made: Italy / Scotland - 36

This is Scotland's crucial stat and it has been the problem with Scottish rugby under Robinson

by Cymroglan Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:29 pm

Wales For 93 Against 49
Ireland For 112 Against 64

Against is 15 points difference for Wales and For is 19 points difference for Ireland

So if my maths is correct if both teams had won the same amount Ireland would be going into next weeks match on +4 ?
Or have I got that wrong .

by eirebilly Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:44 pm

Nope, thats pretty much right Cymroglan. Just the one small affect factor that Ireland have scored 13 tries as well, that would come into play if the teames were unable to be separated on points.

by Cymroglan Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:45 pm

eirebilly wrote:Nope, thats pretty much right Cymroglan. Just the one small affect factor that Ireland have scored 13 tries as well, that would come into play if the teames were unable to be separated on points.

Cheers Billy

by eirebilly Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:47 pm

NP, i did have to get the Irish tries in there, you understand Laugh

by Sponsored content