All Blacks Struck by Norovirus

First topic message reminder :

http://soc.li/EquR5Kd

Cheers Alatair

I am looking for player idividual match stats though, although this makes an interesting read.

Espn has player stats on another tab...but they are pretty limited. Its not like you're going to get the full GPS data or anything

thebluesmancometh wrote:Cheers Alatair

I am looking for player idividual match stats though, although this makes an interesting read.

No probs Blues

Stats always take the 'magic' out of it for me a little and never gives you a qualitative aspect, but as you say, does make for an interesting read.

I'm focusing on work rate Alastair, just to highlight what I suspect was a slightly (ever so possibly) under performing Kiwi team hit by a possible virus.

PSW

I don't need the gps from the last 4 games, I can do that myself, but am looking for gps style data for the rest of the season just passed.

your reasoning behind doing this is what exactly?

and even if they have moved less- what does that prove anyway- england were on top for alot of the game.

just make your decsion- and stick by it. you believe that the kiwis couldnt have lost in this way if there were match fit, thats fine- no data on this is gonna tell you anything conclusive.

you may be right, you may be wrong- what ever data and conclusions you pull out your crack are gonna be completly meaningless.

especially if you think you can work out the last 4 games without real data- i mean seriously.. use precise data at the very least!

Interesting rough results so far, NZ as a team had more posession against England than their average of the other 3 games, by about 6%.

They actually ran the ball approximately 14% less v England than the average of the other 3 tests.

Mccaw made 3 times more tackles v Wales than he did V England, and missed the same amount!!!

All of the above make what you will, but the next is shocking...

NZ man for man moved over 12% less ground against England than Wales, and 8% less than the average of the 3 games previous.

The ratio of walk, jog, sprint in the game against England proved a hugely deciding factor IMHO...

Walk = 16% more than against Wales.

Jog = 2% more than against Wales

Sprint = 11% less than against Wales.

WOW!!!

These stats are not 100% accurate and are pretty crude results from free software Ive downloaded, but they don't half make a statement!!

only an absolute buffon would actually take any of that seriously-

wheres the data you used ?

where did you get it from?

or how did you work it out yourself?

what are the softwares parameters?

why didnt you just knock the software up yourself?- it should take no longer than 10 minutes on excel..

Myster you make me laugh, never stop being you

i sent you a pm,,

just explain how you got the figures dude..

or was this a wum!!

naughty if it was!

well either way your wumming(btw i really truely hope you are) and I would find that funny..

Or you have just made up some figures! which is kinda bordering on sad!

sleep well!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Interesting rough results so far, NZ as a team had more posession against England than their average of the other 3 games, by about 6%.

They actually ran the ball approximately 14% less v England than the average of the other 3 tests.

Mccaw made 3 times more tackles v Wales than he did V England, and missed the same amount!!!

All of the above make what you will, but the next is shocking...

NZ man for man moved over 12% less ground against England than Wales, and 8% less than the average of the 3 games previous.

The ratio of walk, jog, sprint in the game against England proved a hugely deciding factor IMHO...

Walk = 16% more than against Wales.

Jog = 2% more than against Wales

Sprint = 11% less than against Wales.

WOW!!!

These stats are not 100% accurate and are pretty crude results from free software Ive downloaded, but they don't half make a statement!!

Just shows how Poopie Wales were (I was nice and said were rather than are )

Gee Mysti no one is trying to devalue England's win, no ones talking about conspiracy, everyone agrees England played better but doesn't rule out asking whether the ABs played worse than usual and if so why.

thats fine nganboy- just hoping he isnt seriously trying to make out them stats are close to the truth without explaining how he got to them!

surely you can understand this basic logic!

Thing is i am confussed because he has been screaming wum for days(with no validation) so i would be shocked if that was a wum- but tbh i am hopeing he just made em up to wum me!

If that isnt the case he has made himself like like a prize turnip

HammerofThunor wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Interesting rough results so far, NZ as a team had more posession against England than their average of the other 3 games, by about 6%.

They actually ran the ball approximately 14% less v England than the average of the other 3 tests.

Mccaw made 3 times more tackles v Wales than he did V England, and missed the same amount!!!

All of the above make what you will, but the next is shocking...

NZ man for man moved over 12% less ground against England than Wales, and 8% less than the average of the 3 games previous.

The ratio of walk, jog, sprint in the game against England proved a hugely deciding factor IMHO...

Walk = 16% more than against Wales.

Jog = 2% more than against Wales

Sprint = 11% less than against Wales.

WOW!!!

These stats are not 100% accurate and are pretty crude results from free software Ive downloaded, but they don't half make a statement!!

Just shows how Poopie Wales were (I was nice and said were rather than are )

Or perhaps it just shows what effect a long- unbeaten- year, a rubbishing in the press after Hores idiot actions, to top it off with a touch of the flu, can do to a side?

taylor we made a deal pal

your not allowed to say that

True... but these new stats are compeling arent they?
Actually I dont mind the loss at all I'm finding...just having fun with the punters!

yeah these stats are wonderfull!!!

well you had to lose sometime!!!

If you won every game it would probally be as bad as losing every game..

Its like us brits- we appreciate the sun!! coz we hardly get it!

mystiroakey wrote:yeah these stats are wonderfull!!!

well you had to lose sometime!!!

If you won every game it would probally be as bad as losing every game..

Its like us brits- we appreciate the sun!! coz we hardly get it!

Especially Manu! Keep checking his toes now and then will you?

Do you have the flight time stats for ashton?

Norovirus struck by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler....

Sausage if you have a problem with me take it up with the quote function. Otherwise please try and be constructive

Hi guys, fell asleep last night without explaining myself.

Like I said stats I compiled roughly using software I have on my computer (if anyone wants to read up on it I have Dartfish, and Gambreakers)

Rough results include the ground covered per man (subs not included and just replace the plaers in that position) ie. When Romano was replaced the stats for his replacement just carried on with his number, but that was consistnet across the board.

The stats surrounding Mccaw were the ones that shocked me most...

Wales England
Tackles made 21 7
Missed 2 2
Ground covered 9.7km 7.6km
Walk 27min 29min
jog 29min 32min
Sprint 13min 7min

That is one hell of an off day, even if you were having a nightmare game it wouldn't effect effort stats IMHO.

This is why I think the AB's were effected (to a small degree if any) by the Norovirus, compiled with being tired from a long season and a very good performance by England!!!

Text Poll on Re-union (NZ rugby show) tonight had the top result as fatigue and second with 30 % **** happens ( yes their use of * )

thebluesmancometh wrote:Hi guys, fell asleep last night without explaining myself.

Like I said stats I compiled roughly using software I have on my computer (if anyone wants to read up on it I have Dartfish, and Gambreakers)

Rough results include the ground covered per man (subs not included and just replace the plaers in that position) ie. When Romano was replaced the stats for his replacement just carried on with his number, but that was consistnet across the board.

The stats surrounding Mccaw were the ones that shocked me most...

Wales England
Tackles made 21 7
Missed 2 2
Ground covered 9.7km 7.6km
Walk 27min 29min
jog 29min 32min
Sprint 13min 7min

That is one hell of an off day, even if you were having a nightmare game it wouldn't effect effort stats IMHO.

This is why I think the AB's were effected (to a small degree if any) by the Norovirus, compiled with being tired from a long season and a very good performance by England!!!

where did you get the ground covered etc from?

also sadly we are going to need every players stats..

we will also need england stats from previous games, and this one

and we need more than wales v nz game for a full comparison

Like I said stats I compiled roughly using software I have on my computer (if anyone wants to read up on it I have Dartfish, and Gambreakers)

Please read my posts carefully Myster!!!

so you dont put in raw data?

it analyses the video- is that correct?

I can't go back through lots of games as it takes me too long, plus I'll have to find video footage of the whole games (I have some AI games recorded)

This is as much as I can do as time doesn't permit me to work for your pleasure myster (plus the stats Ive pulled so far prove me correct why would I go on to try to disprove myself? )

You can do what you want with them, see them how you like, I'm just giving my thoughts on them.

Plus I have the feeling I clipped the video slightly wrong, but we're talking seconds worth rather than minutes.

gonna be honest you were asking for gps stats before, which means that you were gonna input those into a software- didnt realise you were using a video analysing software..

however we need decent varied and quantitive comparsions- nothing is proven without them!

so no you havent been proved right as of yet.

BTW not trying to wum you. I like stats etc and it is interesting

Pretty much a perfect storm

England played well and in the right style to beat NZ Manu had a blinder, NZ looked tired - long season and illness perhaps.

myster

These don't prove me right at all mate, they simply state rough facts about the AB's ground covered etc...

Your right without at least seasonal stats to compare with they aren't conclusive at all, for all we know the Wales game and other 2 AI's were the blip which is entirely possible.

Plus as with most scientists who conduct experiments I have used the data to highlight what I thought beforehand, I will admit to not going into the analysis totally subjective, but the analysis is such, I may have interperated them slightly out of context.

As I said do with the data as you will, see it how you will, I personally will see them as highlighting a slightly lacklustre AB performance in front of a very very good English one!!

ok thanks for that post dude..

However it would be nice to see more stats.

thebluesmancometh wrote:myster

These don't prove me right at all mate, they simply state rough facts about the AB's ground covered etc...

Your right without at least seasonal stats to compare with they aren't conclusive at all, for all we know the Wales game and other 2 AI's were the blip which is entirely possible.

Plus as with most scientists who conduct experiments I have used the data to highlight what I thought beforehand, I will admit to not going into the analysis totally subjective, but the analysis is such, I may have interperated them slightly out of context.

As I said do with the data as you will, see it how you will, I personally will see them as highlighting a slightly lacklustre AB performance in front of a very very good English one!!

Yeah of course context is everything but if you genuinly havent pulled these out of your cereal box then it does fit what most of us saw..the All Blacks were off the pace and much slower to reorganise in attack and defence then usual. That hasnt really moved the debate on though, we'd already reached the circular how do you know it was/wasnt the virus

I think most peopel would be quite surprised if they didnt see a gradual drop off in work rates toward the end of a very long international season from a team that has nothing to prove in game sthat really are of relatively little improtnace in the grand scheme of things. Even more so if instead of being out n the lash during the week they were sat in the hotel bathrooms chuffing from both ends.

thebluesmancometh wrote:myster

These don't prove me right at all mate, they simply state rough facts about the AB's ground covered etc...

Your right without at least seasonal stats to compare with they aren't conclusive at all, for all we know the Wales game and other 2 AI's were the blip which is entirely possible.

Plus as with most scientists who conduct experiments I have used the data to highlight what I thought beforehand, I will admit to not going into the analysis totally subjective, but the analysis is such, I may have interperated them slightly out of context.

As I said do with the data as you will, see it how you will, I personally will see them as highlighting a slightly lacklustre AB performance in front of a very very good English one!!

Most bad scientists maybe. That's not good science and anyone doing it lose their scientist status for being a knob.

Also I've just read a telegraph article from when it first hit and Hansen said it started before the Wales game! So you can bugger off. They we ill for Wales (I assume the bad ones weren't playing) but now we're not talking about a 4 day recovery. We're talking 7 days.

Bluesman if you serious think those stats mean anything whatsoever other than how much people run, jog, etc, you're properly deluding yourself. Hopefully you're wumming. How exactly does it work out the stats for players out of screen shot? Or do you have special deals with Sky and BBC to get all the video footage from all the cameras as well as an insider in the RFU (who only linked to you in the whole world that the All Blacks were ill afterwards, which makes it a week long noravirus!!)

Hammer

It may have started before the Wales game, the incubation of a virus of such is probably 1-5 days, although incubation doesn't effect the body!!

I'm not WUMing I am merely presenting facts that a number of AB players didn't cover anywhere near as much ground as the games before them.

And the Norovirus is a name for a band of virus's it can't be nailed down to one (easily) and differing ranges could be from 24 hours to 7 days and maybe beyond.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Hammer

It may have started before the Wales game, the incubation of a virus of such is probably 1-5 days, although incubation doesn't effect the body!!

Then how did they know it started? They know it started because the symptoms appeared.

I'm not WUMing I am merely presenting facts that a number of AB players didn't cover anywhere near as much ground as the games before them.

But that doesn't mean anything to do with the virus or being beaten. Especially when you're just looking at two games. If it truely did take you ages you really might as well not bothered.

And the Norovirus is a name for a band of virus's it can't be nailed down to one (easily) and differing ranges could be from 24 hours to 7 days and maybe beyond.

But the All Blacks (Reid specifically) have already said that it only last 24 hours. So it really doesn't matter how strains of the virus. THIS one lasted around 24 hours (by that I expect he means a day which fits with the usual 8-12 hours references earlier).

So we have a day long virus that some of the players had before the Wales game (not stated how long before the Wales game and had gone through the whole squad (except two players) by the time of the beginning of last week.

Then you have some 'facts' regarding distance traveled (what video to you put in? Just the TV stuff, which doesn't show what all the players are doing all the time, making it even more meaningless?).

Then how did they know it started? Doh They know it started because the symptoms appeared.

It's quite simple, when you get symptons you look back to what could've happened and when you contracted it, they were diagnosed with a form of Norovirus weren't they? And on a large scale?

I used the AI games, but couldn't use the first 2 for a number of reason for a few stats.

And most importantly if you put your fingers down your throat you will spew and lose vital fluids that you may not be able to replace for up to 7 days, then imagine for 24 hours it shoots out at both ends, it can take up to a month to get back to a professional performance place regarding hydration alone (at a cellular level)

You need to chill out, your getting way too angry over the results that NZ didn't perform as good as they normally do!

Maybe NZ passed the virus onto the Wales team whilst they were infectious (probably during a scrum). Might account for Wales not performing in the Aus game.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Then how did they know it started? Doh They know it started because the symptoms appeared.

It's quite simple, when you get symptons you look back to what could've happened and when you contracted it, they were diagnosed with a form of Norovirus weren't they? And on a large scale?

I used the AI games, but couldn't use the first 2 for a number of reason for a few stats.

And most importantly if you put your fingers down your throat you will spew and lose vital fluids that you may not be able to replace for up to 7 days, then imagine for 24 hours it shoots out at both ends, it can take up to a month to get back to a professional performance place regarding hydration alone (at a cellular level)

You need to chill out, your getting way too angry over the results that NZ didn't perform as good as they normally do!

I'm not angry at all. I'm just really confused about some of what you're saying.

You think that Hansen, when asked when it started, would, instead of giving the very clear date of first symptoms, would estimate a date due to a general incubation period? You really think that's likely? Why not just admit that the All Black camp had probably (in fact almost certainly) already started showing D&V symptoms before the Wales game? I don't understand why that's so hard for you to do.

Also you still haven't said what video footage you put into your software.

It's simple, I can't acknowledge they showed symptoms of the virus before the welsh game because there were no reported symptoms until the week after from what Ive read.

And from all the data Ive analysed NZ performed 10% worse the following week hen talking stats that opposition does not effect.

Thats all I'm saying why do you find it so difficult to admit a virus can effect a top level performance? Dehydration alone is a huge factor in performance, and all the scientific studies have proved that 1% dehydration can effect professional performance by up to 10%.

What makes me smile is whether or not norovirus affected the All Blacks it seems that it was someone from Wales that gave it to them
Come on Guys 5 pages about what might or might not have caused something that the team dont is boardering on insanity. It is history let it be

I said right at the very beginning that the Virus would have impacted them. Especially at the end of the season. I did however disagree that it was the main factor, enough for a poster to say it was awkward to watch and made him feel sorry for them.

It's simple, I can't acknowledge they showed symptoms of the virus before the welsh game because there were no reported symptoms until the week after from what Ive read.

There is a direct quote from Hansen saying it "started before the Wales game". I say "started" almost certainly the beginning of symptoms rather than using projected possible incubation periods.

And from all the data Ive analysed NZ performed 10% worse the following week hen talking stats that opposition does not effect.

What stats are these? How on earth do you define 'worse' as a percentage?

Dehydration alone is a huge factor in performance, and all the scientific studies have proved that 1% dehydration can effect professional performance by up to 10%.

Dehydration when? During the performance? A day before? A week? What sort of 'medication' were the All Blacks on? What dehydration levels did they actually hit? That statement on it's own is meaningless. Just like the 'flu' symptoms having a 20% effect comment nonsense from earlier.

Hammer

WHEN YOU ARE ILL YOUR BODY BECOMES DEHYDRATED AS A DEFAULT SAFETY MODE, when your sick or have the squits you lose water, this fluid loss can take up to a month to recover fully from at a cellular level!!!

Dehydration quantified at 1% is before the onset of the thirst response. Thats how little it is!!! Dehydration at a cellular level isn't recognisable, but can be determined with cramps, slower physiological response than usual, and weak performance in the areas where opposition doesn't effect.

None of this is meaningless, they are scientific points proved over and over, the datat I used was distance covered, a non oppistion based factor.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Hammer

WHEN YOU ARE ILL YOUR BODY BECOMES DEHYDRATED AS A DEFAULT SAFETY MODE, when your sick or have the squits you lose water, this fluid loss can take up to a month to recover fully from at a cellular level!!!

Reference

Dehydration quantified at 1% is before the onset of the thirst response. Thats how little it is!!! Dehydration at a cellular level isn't recognisable, but can be determined with cramps, slower physiological response than usual, and weak performance in the areas where opposition doesn't effect.

Again how dehydrated were the All Blacks? Without that specific information it doesn't matter how much impact dehydration has.

None of this is meaningless, they are scientific points proved over and over, the datat I used was distance covered, a non oppistion based factor.

How is distance covered not effected by you opponent? If a team has a solid defense you won't do much running. If you can't move forward much (against a strong defense) then most of our players are standing around. They are completely dependent on the opposing team. If the territory stats are largely in the middle of the pitch then teams won't cover as much ground. If it's in both 22 then they'll be covering more. I don't understand why I have to explain this to someone with their own automatic video stat generating software. How accurate is your software.

And still you haven't said what footage you put in the software.

And using it the way you have is not scientific. You've already said you highlighted facts that backed you up (in your opinion). That's the opposite of scientific. One of the (if not THE) key scientific principles is to highlight the facts that oppose you. You should exhaustively look for things that prove you wrong and if you can't find any then you can carry on excepting your premise. Those distances covered stats (however they were generated) could mean multiple different things depending on what you wanted to get out of them.

thebluesmancometh wrote:myster

These don't prove me right at all mate, they simply state rough facts about the AB's ground covered etc...

Your right without at least seasonal stats to compare with they aren't conclusive at all, for all we know the Wales game and other 2 AI's were the blip which is entirely possible.

Plus as with most scientists who conduct experiments I have used the data to highlight what I thought beforehand, I will admit to not going into the analysis totally subjective, but the analysis is such, I may have interperated them slightly out of context.

As I said do with the data as you will, see it how you will, I personally will see them as highlighting a slightly lacklustre AB performance in front of a very very good English one!!

seriously?!?! you wouldn't last long as a scientist if that was what you did...

You still didn't answer Hammer's question of exactly what data you put into your software. Was it the videos from the matches? If so I don't think you can reasonably say anything from it, given that you won't have all players movement throughout the match.

Of course another explanation to why McCaw sprinted more against Wales could be that Wales chucked the ball willy-nilly out wide hoping something would happen, so McCaw had to be sharper off the mark to reach the breakdown quickly, whereas England played a lot more through the forwards/around the fringes (so McCaw would have been closer to where the ruck would have formed and hence would have had less distance to sprint).

Firstly I need to point out that there is a huge amount of contraversy over scientific study today, from the decline effect, the tests of replicability, publishing bias, financial agenda, and peer review fatality!!!

Scientists are put under huge amounts of pressure to prove their hypotheses correct, and this pressure leads to the loss of subjectivity.

Did you know the success rates of hypotheses has become near 75% since 2000? (non official) and since 2000 a record number of results have been disproven leading to a restructure of the whole peer review process.

Therefore the theory is that 99% of scientists and experiments are fundamentally flawed!!

But I digress...

Hammer I could post numerous site regarding dehydration but you'll claim they aren't good enough, so I will encourage you to go to google books or scholar and do a quick search for facts regarding dehydration, they are the best searches you can do without specific access to online information on physiological issues.

Regarding the hydration status of the AB's we will never know, I bet the coaching team will know but are not going to release that. My point is unless you have access to the players you can only estimate using tools at your disposal, in my case I looked at energy usage times and ground covered. The fact that i've read about AB's using IV's during the week means the team had to have been worried about dehydration, and even this is just one of a number of issues a bug can cause!!

The video I used was from match games of course, and is why I have constantly called the data rough, but as I have done so with the other games all games analysed are on an even keel, the analysis software uses the ball, game speed and player trackers to produce a number, if the player leaves shot it uses a formula to calculate the players movements until returning to shot, but as Mccaw will have left shot as much against Wales, Scotland and Italy his stats should be pretty similar, as they are in the first 3 games and very poor in comparison in the last game!!

Mad

You might actually be right, Mccaws ground covered could be a result in English defence and offence tactics, although by your reckoning if England kept it tighter, kept narrower and kept the ball up their jumpers...

would Mccaw have made more or less tackles?

Also would there be more or less rucks?

And as a result would Mccaw attack more or less rucks?

Answer, keeping it tight would provide much more rucks in the game, making Mcaww make far more tackles, and attack more rucks.

He didn't, infact he made 3 times more tackles V Wales, and missed the same number v both teams, plus he attacked far less rucks against England.

If I was so inclined I would also find his ruck success %, this would be far less than the rest of his career IMHO, but that would take forever!!!


I think you both need to realise this debate started with me arguing that NZ certainly did have an off day, for whatever reason (I believe the virus had to have had a small hand in that at least) and lost a game to a very good England performance and a better performance on the day!!

Is England the better team, no, not by a long shot, did England deserve to win yes very much so!!!

bluesman,

Admittedly you're not foaming at the mouth as much as AWOP but you're pretty much posting in the same vein.

It's a little churlish to go to such lengths to try and discredit a good performance.

Using data to 'highlight what I thought beforehand' is like Coca Cola funding an investigation into the effects of fizzy drinks on teeth. No doubt the 'smart' chemicals in their product are proven to actually grow enamel back in 57% of cases.

Cyril

You do realise all major brands fund testing on the issues of their products don't you, most of the time under the guise of alias companies, and using recent graduate/students who need the funding!!

You can try to discredit me all you like, I deal in facts, not opinions (although I like to air mine) not WUmmery but facts, and to say I am discreditting Englands performance? How is that? Show me where I have done anything of the sort?

Gentlemen as far as I can see here, none of you are stating any facts to despute BLuesmancometh.

You are only criticising his analysis, opinions and findings.

I suggest the best way to counter his arguments is to bring justifable argument to his reasoning, not criticism of what he is bringing to the table only.