All Blacks Struck by Norovirus

First topic message reminder :

http://soc.li/EquR5Kd

thebluesmancometh wrote: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!!

Yes, that's why I mentioned it. It's hardly credible, neutral research.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
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?

Well, not really given that you admit that lots of what you're saying is guesswork and we know you've got an agenda ('I use data to highlight what I thought beforehand' - hardly scientific or neutral, is it?).

NZ fans don't seem to want to dredge through all this to find a way of explaining how England could possibly win. Oddly enough it seems you do.

Good luck with your quest. May it bring you joy and fulfillment.

biltong,

It's up to bluesman to prove his 'theories'. He hasn't.

Which theories would you like him to prove?

The fact that a virus can dehidrate you.

Would you like a thesis on the chemistry of the body, and how long it takes to get out of the system.

would you like him to show the work rate of Richie McCaw throughout the season in comparison to the match vs England.

What information would be sufficient for you to recognise as worthy to debate?

A document signed off by a physician or scientist in triplicate?

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work

Biltong, you seem a little sore about the fact SA can't even come close to matching the ABs, let alone beat them well. Stop looking for excuses and debate how SA need to improve.

Neutral

Maybe not, but credible??? Have you ever seen any advert on the TV that states something is proven? Have you ever read a peice of research that states something is fact? These are all credible studies, if not corrupted, but EVRYTHING IS CORRUPTED, the peer review system supposedly deals with non credible peices of work, so everything that slips through is credible!!!

No nothing I have said is guesswork, it's all credible, but can be interperated in a slightly differing way, I use it as my argument because my opinions are based on the findings through what I hypothesised.

Watching the game I saw NZ not up to scratch, movement, technique, ability and body language all seemed off (despite me actually supporting England, how many times do I have to repeat myself). I did suggest England were going to win by 5-7 points once I heard the news of a possible virus, as did a number of people late in the week.

Anyone from NZ of course want to dredge through every game they los to see how they can improve, did you not read the number of threads after the Brisbane game? They wanted to vent, they wanted to search and find out how they didn't win, but after saturday they are just happy to chalk it up to a bad day? That suggests to me that they think the virus had an effect too, and that they know NZ are the better team in general.

And regarding proving my theories, technically I have presented a theory, used video analysis to prove it, presented it to you, and you've rejected it on the basis you think I have an agenda.

It is now up to you to present your theory of my agenda... go

Biltong wrote:Which theories would you like him to prove?

The fact that a virus can dehidrate you.

Would you like a thesis on the chemistry of the body, and how long it takes to get out of the system.

would you like him to show the work rate of Richie McCaw throughout the season in comparison to the match vs England.

What information would be sufficient for you to recognise as worthy to debate?

A document signed off by a physician or scientist in triplicate?

Any three of the above would suffice.

Seriously though, these theories are really no different to opinions then?

It's more about the motive than anything else. This England win has really got up some people's noses (just like the Norovirus).

blues-- lets forget about agendas!! its not gonna help anything.

Offcourse we can reject your findings- because it is based on extremely thin data, and there is not enough compariosns.

If we didnt add any data to this discussion your argument would actually be stronger..

But thanks for trying- but unless you are gonna provide more findings and show us how this software works- how can you possibly expect us to accept it!

How about primary testimony from Richie McCaw... would that do???

England captain Richie McCaw ruled out that the bug New Zealand picked up in the week had an effect, stating that despite the loss the All Blacks should be proud of what they have achieved in 2012.

"I don't think the sickness was a factor," he revealed.

"I felt fine in that department. They kept the scoreboard ticking over and apart from that period when we scored we were on the back foot."

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,3562_8300201,00.html

This is turing into an "I said / he said arguement."

At the end of the day, England played better/harder/faster than New Zealand did during the match.

Did England deserve to win? Yes
Are England a better team than New Zealand? No

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Biltong, you seem a little sore about the fact SA can't even come close to matching the ABs, let alone beat them well. Stop looking for excuses and debate how SA need to improve.

For the sake of the debate I will dissect your statement.

Biltong, you seem a little sore about the fact SA can't even come close to matching the ABs

You are welcome to read my comments on various threads where I complimented the english on their win, I even gave my reasons why they managed to beat the all Blacks, and I called it the game of the year.

Stop looking for excuses
I am a little lost as to what excuses I am making. I assume because I am suggesting posters argue with counter arguments rather than blatant criticism towards Bluesman, that you see that as excuses.

and debate how SA need to improve

Links to articles I did on the Boks, you are welcome to go read them.

Heyneke Meyer a year in review part I

Heyneke Meyer a year in review part II

Ritchie Mccaws testimony (of which it isn't because it is not in a court of law and he is under no oath to tell the truch) is actually very interesting.

Firstly he is talking to the home teams media, a media renowned for ripping people apart and pretty much sensationalising every word they can.

He of course disputes any sickness as a factor of his performance, but admnits to a sickness. Based on performers being the last person in the loop regarding their performance what he is actually saying is despite feeling sick during the week he feels fine. Which is part of the dangers of sickness and injury in a top level athlete.

Look at his words 'I don't think sickness was a factor' Not sickness definately was a factor, he as a player, not a medical practitioner, or physiologist, just a player 'felt fine in THAT department' Which leads to the obvious question, in what department did he not feel fine in?

Tiger

Did England deserve to win? Yes
Are England a better team than New Zealand? No

That is exactly what Ive said above

bluesman, if you had just said that we could all have agreed and gone home

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

Thats from the last page, and there are about 4/5 more comments form me like that from the start of the thread, sometimes you just have to read what people are saying without getting outraged by what you think they are

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Biltong, you seem a little sore about the fact SA can't even come close to matching the ABs, let alone beat them well. Stop looking for excuses and debate how SA need to improve.

Just to make it easier for you.

Re: Well done England
by Biltong on Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 pm

.Brilliant performance by England today. They were physical in defnece, committed numbers to the rucks and made the All black forwards ineffective for much of the match.

However the AB's reminded us all what they can do with little ball. I actually thought they will run away from England after those two tries, but Barrit's run through the defensive line sparked confidence in the English.

Amazingly Tuilagi made one well timed pass and a bit if a squeeky offload, enough to promise him and Barrit might at last be clicking.

I like Brown a lot..
Biltong
Moderator




Posts: 17293
Join date: 2011-04-27
Location: On my cruiser somewhere in sunny SA.

England ( 6 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw) (23 tries)

After coming second in the 6 nations with a young team and a new coach, England went to South Africa and took positives out of the third test which did show some promise, but I reckon Lancaster must have been disappointed coming away with no wins. As always England were physical at times but also overrun at times by the SA forwards, entering the Autumn internationals they must certainly have targeted wins over SA and OZ, but again there backs just didn't manage to fire, until of course when they met NZ last might at Twickenham.

For the first time this year, I saw an England team that had patience and understanding of how to open up defences. The whole year they attempted to go wide too early and found organised defence waiting, last night they attacked the middle and waited for the opportunity to attack the gaps out wide and it brought them a most famous victory over the All Blacks.

https://www.606v2.com/t38007-rugby-union-a-year-in-review

thebluesmancometh

Any reason for him to lie??

If what you say is true then nothing you read or say outside of a court of law can be counted. In fact what you're saying right now cannoted be attributed to you because you didn't say it under oath.... come on dude, this ain't the boy scouts.

I've played pretty high level sport myself... not pro but reasonably high level representation. Anyhow, I would trust my own feelings quite highly into whether I'm a little jaded or not, more so then nearly all people (bar God & some Doc who has me wired to a running machine and various monitors).

You state that the ABs performance was down compared to matches vs. Italy, Scotland and Wales.....

that metres ran in total was down.... well perhaps, just perhaps thats because ENG are a better side than those 3 at the moment (rankings acknowledge this).
ENG are very close to AUS in terms of level of play.

When you compare the ENG match with the last AUS match compared to ENG vs. your last 3 games comparison it does question the validity of your assumptions.

Metres ran vs. ENG - 398.
Metres ran vs. AUS - 336

So even with Norovirus ravaging their bodies than managed to run 18% more against ENG than they did vs. AUS 1 month before... Remarkable!

Stats can tell you a millions things.... but if I had to trust your stats, ESPN's stats or testimony from a player themself... I'd trust the player.

There have been quite a few posts since I last looked so I'll have to go through them one at a time in a random appearing order.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Ritchie Mccaws testimony (of which it isn't because it is not in a court of law and he is under no oath to tell the truch) is actually very interesting.

Firstly he is talking to the home teams media, a media renowned for ripping people apart and pretty much sensationalising every word they can.

He of course disputes any sickness as a factor of his performance, but admnits to a sickness. Based on performers being the last person in the loop regarding their performance what he is actually saying is despite feeling sick during the week he feels fine. Which is part of the dangers of sickness and injury in a top level athlete.

Look at his words 'I don't think sickness was a factor' Not sickness definately was a factor, he as a player, not a medical practitioner, or physiologist, just a player 'felt fine in THAT department' Which leads to the obvious question, in what department did he not feel fine in?

He felt fine in the sickness dpeartment. He felt knackered after the long season (not said), he felt shell shocked that Barritt actually broke the line (not said). It could be anything. He did say the things that he didn't say so any assumptions would be pure guessing. What he DID say was that he didn't think the virus was an factor. So either he's lying, he's unaware of the impact, he's wasn't affected. Now since he's a professional sports person used to dealing with injuries I expect he knows when he's not physicially right so we can discount the middle one. So either he's lying or he's fine. We cannot know which one it is so any choice would be a pure guess.

thebluesmancometh wrote: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!!!

Fair enough, I was just pointing out there could be other reasons for the McCaw stats. I expect Wales had more of the ball against NZ than England did (at least I think they did) so you'd expect McCaw to make more tackles, but 7 tackles is remarkably few for McCaw regardless.

I can't disagree that NZ were below par, how much of that is down to fatigue/virus/England simply coming at them hard, etc. is I suspect hard to quantify. My personal viewpoint on the virus is that it would have affected preparations, but not sure it affected performance given how strongly NZ finished.

Don't think anyone is claiming England are a better team than NZ, but they were the better team on the day (by some margin), and right now I'm enjoying the fact we hammered the All Blacks

FA

He's not lying, just being as composed, neutral and complimentary as possible to the home teams media, what would you call him if he had turned around and said, 'ye that game doesn't count we were sick'??

Secondly I am not saying anything right now, I am publishing it on the internet so what I say is attributed to me!!!

Being involved with professional sport is a very strange thing, players are the last to know anthing about their performance for numerous reasons. Firstly performers and fans alike have been proved to remember less than 40% of what as actually happened post game, and performers always tend to put an emotional response to their recollections.

A performer cannot tell you if his technique was good enough, if his workrate was high enough, if his energy systems worked correctly, if his synapses responses were quick, if his hydration level at a cellular level was ok, if his heart rate was within the right zone, if his focus was good, if his medulla had performed with the right speed, if his adrenalin levels were spiked at the right time... (I could go on all day)

When your talking metres run I suspect your using ball carried stats by accident, that is very much an opposition based stat. Therefore Aus were significantly better in stopping NZ's carrying than England a difference of 62 metre, where NZ carried 440 v Wales? a difference of 42. This just highlights the ability of the defence, not the work rate of the NZ team.

England being better has little to do with ground covered, it is the closest thing to a non opposition based stat you can get, for example if NZ smashing Japan by 100 points and getting smashed by 17 points by England should reveal similar effort levels from the AB's.

Ok lads,,

Shouldnt we take out the end of season fatigue out of the equation.

Unless off course we can argue that end of season fatigue doesnt affect the english..

Now we could say that england didnt have so much fatigue because we have played more players during the year. However team sports are a squad game - therefor that could never be a true argument!!

Hammer

And so you should, I have said that I would be more than happy had Wales done the same, not just with beating the AB's but the style and performance in doing so!!

I also agree with you that there are other reasons for ground covered etc, but the fact that Mccaw averages around 15 tackles per game (I think) and only managed 7 v England and missed 2 (of which he made 23 v Wales and missed 2) says a lot. NZ had 8% more posession against England than Wales I think, which could account for less tackles, but 16 less?

Like you said noone can ever win the argument, there is no definate answer, just educated estimation to the best of our abilities, but I will not be surprised to see a news report in the future regarding this.

Myster

You can't rule out end of season fatigue besause only one team was at the end of their season, England int season hase just begun!!

You could argue for the first game of the AI's being unfair on NH teams because the SH teams have been together so long and are battle ready, but last game of the season is certainly in favour of the NH team IMHO.

..and that - is why we lost our last game to them. Thanks bluesman for the clarification

Who is we fly? and who is them?

To prove my point look at the Aus game, Aus were all but on the plane home, they were out on their feet!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote: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...

You do digress because is completely and utterly irrelevant. It only seems to be an attempt to justify applying poor scientific method yourself, which is never good science.

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.

You could. However you gave out a stat (1% dehydration 10% performance) without any supporting information. What sort of sporting performance? What sort of dehydration levels do rugby players usually have? What sort of dehydration levels did the All Blacks have? All of this information is required to make an informed judgement, anyhting less is just a guess.

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!!

Reference about the drip? (seeing a link here?). I expect they would be on drips, it's very good way of reducing dehydration. Did it stop them from getting dehydrated?

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!!

Assuming that McCaw was in shot for the same amount of time for all games is a complete guess. Any extrapolation of player movements is going to complete Love sacks from TV footage. That software is designed for sports teams who use dedicated camera at their home games for the analysis. Also they tend to have all the TV footage rather than just those aired. so the extrapolation errors will be smaller. That's on top of the fact that distance covered doesn't mean they were more or less effected by the virus. They were also beaten and using those stats to prove one thing or another is a circular argument. Are the stats because you were poorly or because you lost?

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!!!

there are many reasons why their would be more or fewer rucks. One is that england got some quick ball and and offloaded more. Again those stats in isolation don't tell us anything other than what they exactly tell us (that's assuming they are in anyway correct).

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!!

This started because you made comments like "that was awkward to watch. I could help but feel sympathetic" and "I feel compassion for them and no doubt the England players will to when they look back at the game". That suggests a major hand rather than a small hand. [those are paraphrasings rather than actual quotes as I can't be bothered to track them down. If you want to claim you didn't say them, fine]. I think pretty much every single person has agreed it would have had some small effect, most likely on their preperation rather than fitness. Since that point the discussion has been more about the bad science you are using to try and prove your point.

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

It thought you were only as good as your last game? So yes England are the best team. At least until they get beat by Scotland in the 6 nations. That's, at least if you go in for that 'as good as your last game' Love sacks.

thebluesmancometh wrote:England being better has little to do with ground covered, it is the closest thing to a non opposition based stat you can get, for example if NZ smashing Japan by 100 points and getting smashed by 17 points by England should reveal similar effort levels from the AB's.

It may be the closest thing to a non-opposition based stat as you get but it's still heavily affected by you opposition. Do you think the All Blakcs running the length of the pitch multiple times against Japan (or Wales) would have the same distance travelled as against a strong defensive side that doesn't allow them out of the middle of the park? There would be a massive difference.

So he's lying because he's a gentleman... I see.

If you've read NZ newspapers online or what NZ journalists/ex. pros etc have said you'll find hardly anything on the Norovirus. Hardly any of them mention it outsdie of a passing glance and mostly state that they were simply not good enough on the day.
Is the great Chris Rattue such a gentleman that its beneath him to highlight such a cause??? These are same guys who continue to rattle on about old Suzie I should add.. near 20 years down the line.

If what you say is true then whats the point of interview players as they know nothing of what went on.... better get in some statto to tell us how it really went on. In fact, coaches, players etc shouldn't pick the side... get in mathematican in with zero ideas on the game and give us performance breakdown.

How you're talking reminds me of the film Moneyball... sure stats has its place, put just like the filmed ended... it can only be used up to a point.... and by basing their side around them they ultimately failed as it doesn't and can't take into account all necessary factors.
What you say is all true... a player, a person does not know what you say about their body's performance. They will have their own opinions just like someone watching in the stands.... but neither of them will have any idea.

But you can't tell those things via stats.

You can't tell if McCaw was thinking about his sick puppy dog back home either rather than on the game.... how do you know that didn't have an impact either???

Personal consequences will have just as big an impact as physical ones. But its not something you can quantify, through sports science or anything.

I respect your stance and your opinion but I think you're looking into this a little too much and not taking the full picture. I do think it had an impact, but not by much and no less than other issues which teams face on any given week and IMO on the evidence displayed on saturday not enough to change the result significantly.

One statistic I did check was NZ's tackle success during the season.

In the Rugby championship their tackle success rate was 90%, against england it was 84%

Whatever you want to subscribe the All black performance, it was not their best.

BB

It was 87% against Wales.

Does that mean Wales are better line breakers than AUS, SA & ARG?

When only about 100-150 tackles are made by a team per game.... 3 missed extra tackles can have a significant impact on the stats... and given the match scenarios/circumstances are completely different I think 3 missed tackles are within the margin of error.

Willem Alberts missed the most tackles in last years SR season... does that make him the worst tackler in SR? Again... its all relative.

Biltong wrote: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.

I'm sorry but the if the argument is based on what he brings to the table the first place to look is at that. If that has massive holes in it that any opinions based on it are already wrong. Especially when he's already admitted to picking out the 'facts' that he feels he can make back him up.

As for our own 'facts', that's the point, we don't have enough to make a judgement on this. What you would really have to do is take all the data from all of the games from the last X number of AI. Look for trends for all teams, the All Blacks, England. Pick out particular games, such as this one, the Australia one, last game of previous games, any tough games they've had, etc and look to see if there is any pattern or discontinuity with the recent England game. Pick the odd thing here and there and trying to extrapolate general trends is wrong.

fa0019 wrote:BB

It was 87% against Wales.

Does that mean Wales are better line breakers than AUS, SA & ARG?

My personal theory is end of season fatigue. I don't think the virus is the reason, but I do think the perfomances of the the SH teams dropped from the first weekend to the last.

You can look at Argentina who showed the worst decline, Australia was poor against wales, SA was poor right through and in all honesty were lucky to win against england, New Zealand got worse as the month progressed.

Thats a lot of effort, but your missing the key points...

I am not claiming I am 100% correct, I have stated 100 times my stats are rough (and that other stats I used ESPN etc can't be proved 100%) I unfortunately don't have the privilage of the access to the teams specific camera's, to the video of the game, but the software I do have take screen time etc into account as it is a private for home use software, not a stupidly expensive specific peice of equipment. What I have is far better for smaller clips for use of biomechanics etc and the player tracker is crude, but is evenly crude for all games so represents as good a data as anyone can provide (if you can do better to prove me wrong I will accept it)

You can google book/scholar and find all the supporting info you want on my claims, as you can find studies of dehydration in rugby players probably, it is not for me to prove to you, if you don't beleive me go and disprove me as I have gone and proved myself!

Regarding the drip it was from a news article I read but would have no idea where to refind it, go and look yourself if you want to disprove me!

Regarding the key stats of tackles made, making 23 and missing 2 one week to making 7 and missing 2 the next week when your average tackle count against the best in the world is around the 15 mark isn't in isolation. Infact I heard Mccaw in an interview a few years ago about his performances he stated that in every game he aimed for 20+ tackles. Having more ball is the stat I'd say that effected that the most, but 8% more ball doesn't really account for 1/3rd of the tackle count and a double figure % less ground covered, don't you think?

If you beleive your only as good as your last game then thats fine, England IMHO aren't a better team than NZ, and certainly not a 17 point better team, thats not to say they don't deserve the victory they do, and they played very well. Does it catapult them to best team in the world? And does the result fit in with their AI series? For me it was a shock result and one out of context with the AI's England had.

And I did say I didn't enjoy the game, It was awkward etc, seeing Mccaw flounce off rucks not making a dent, and Carter and Smith looking like schoolboy defenders and making basic errors was not enjoyable, they are modern day legends who were clearly effected by something, that is part of the reason I think the virus, maybe along woth other reasons was part of that result, and I have heard nothing from anyone to change my mind!

FA, it is important to understand that both sides of any argument is going to be looked at.

firstly England was complimented and congratulated by all and sundry for a very good performance.

The argument of the virus is a real one, the proof is there that the all Blacks suffered because of it, whether it influenced their game nobody can say, you can take the word of Richie MCaw that says it didn't.

However the same argument that is bounced around in June that it is the end of Season for the NH can also be used for the SH, the same argument of not having played together, not having much time to prepare etc.

Those arguments all have merit, it isn't only applicable from one side of an argument.

The issue for me here is england got their well deserved accolades.

This thread in particular is about the virus. Hence the dsicussions will be varied theories about what the virus, might have, could have or couldn't have done.

Same as debates around fatigue, form, injuries etc we bound around after every test match.

The way I see it is Bluesman has an opinion, he coaches from what I know, hence he most likely knows a lot more than I do, so instead of crticising him, I am prepared to listen to his theories.

get in mathematican in with zero ideas on the game and give us performance breakdown.

You do realise that this technique has shaped american sports in the last few years, and the film you refer to as money ball is based on a true story, the outcome not being that it was flawed (that news report at the end was sarcastic) but that if a team gets to the final of a comp spending a 10th of the financial comtimnet than the other team in the final, no matter the result of the final there is only 1 winner. Final winners don't earn any more significant money, or get any more following than the other finalist, it's about getting there with the least financial cost possible.

And please trust me when I say that American sport is the best funded, and most advanced on the planet, it's only a matter of time before someone creates a winning formula based on seasonal stats and reduced wage/comitment of the player. Where we are right now (compiling stats on games/players etc) is where the Americans were 10 years ago!!

I havn't admitted to picking facts out to suit my argument at all, I chose data to look at in the most appropriate way possible to highlight what I thought happened, then analysed that data and came to the conclusion my hypothesis was correct!!

Also for the record I am not a huge stats person, there are generally factors and variables that effect every decision, but stats isolated and used in comparison can be very usefull, especially when estimation and emotion is the highest order as on these boards.

The way I see it is Bluesman has an opinion, he coaches from what I know, hence he most likely knows a lot more than I do, so instead of crticising him, I am prepared to listen to his theories.

You'd be the first mate, on here or in real life!!!

But regarding the fatigue issue I have to agree, Aus were all but on the plane home V Wales and were off their feet, they looked mentally exhausted IMHO, thats what makes the defeat so hard to take!! Infact the only real performance they put in was against England!!!

I have to say, anyone who says the virus had no impact is just believing what they want to believe. How could you know?

If you take a couple of steps backwards: NZ are unbeaten in 20 games, including multiple victories against Aus and SA; England are looking reasonably promising but not setting the world alight; have just lost to SA and Aus, albeit narrowly. In the week before the game, most of the NZ team get a debilitating virus. NZ are then soundly beaten by England, looking off the pace.

Obviously the degree to which the virus has an impact can't be known, it may be very little, it may be quite a lot. England can only play what is in front of them, and played very well. But to assert with confidence that the virus had no impact would be a matter of choosing what you want to believe rather than a statement founded on a rational analysis.

It doesn't alter the score, or the fact that England played very well and are obviously on the right track.

holy balls is this thread still going

It doesn't alter the score, or the fact that England played very well and are obviously on the right track.

+1

Has anyone said the virus had no effect? If I have it was a mistake. I think someone did earlier but they're a WUM I think.

What this discussion about is a claim that the virus had a significant impact (enough to make someone feel awkward when watching it) and then looking at ways to prove/disprove that.

HammerofThunor wrote:Has anyone said the virus had no effect?

Richie Mccaw?

course mate... I agree with you... its natural that these guys are going to be tired after 19 SR matches, 12 test matches and any other ITM/CC or warm up games to boot.

And I'm sure the Norovirus had an impact however big or small.... just like as I mentioned earlier if lets say Richie McCaw's puppy was sick back home which took his mind off the game slightly (fictitious example of a players personal circumstances).

I'm sure there are people who have played at a higher level than myself/have coached etc and I try not to bias when listening to their opinions like I have listened to many on here.

But one thing I would dispute is reading stats and comparing it to a very basic field of comparison. Most of the guys (yourself included) here are reasonable educated/intelligence fellows and will try and take a wide range of factors into opinions.

Some people have tracking software.... well, thats all good and well but unless your camera was based at twickenham and the MS the week before your stats are useless. If you're basing the stats on TV coverage then you're not going to pick up players out of shot etc.

Its what many posters have been saying all along... its bad science.

Trusting that and discounting player testimony, the opinions of ex. players/journalists is just a little weak IMO many of whom are paid $$$ to make their voices heard.. they are paid these sums becuase they know what they are talking about and people trust their judgement.

I recall you saying you often trust was Naas says... mainly becuase as much as it pains me to say, he's often more right then wrong.

Hammer

I havn't said it had a significant impact mind, I said it had some sort of effect, combined with a number of reasons such as the fatigue issue and Englands level of performance it was a factor of a number of factors to why England won and won well!!

Richie McCaw said it had little/no impact. I posted the linked from planet rugby earlier today in the thread.

Its what many posters have been saying all along... its bad science.

Trusting that and discounting player testimony, the opinions of ex. players/journalists is just a little weak IMO many of whom are paid $$$ to make their voices heard.. they are paid these sums becuase they know what they are talking about and people trust their judgement.

I recall you saying you often trust was Naas says... mainly becuase as much as it pains me to say, he's often more right then wrong.

__________________________________________________________

Have to dispute this, firstly I never called my process scientific, we got into a scientific debate because of incorrect terms and usage of the word.

Then regarding pundits and 'experts' they are selected and paid to air 'their opinions' because they are popular, not because they know anything. There are teams of Physiologists, Analysts and performance experts feeding them all the information they use to highlight whats going on, and even then it is dumbed down hugely!!! Any real expert of the game is involved within the game, the likes of Davies and Moore are entertaining and little else, they offer nothing to the game.

I disregard anything that can be explained with sound reasoning, and if you can find data that highlights my analysis is wrong be my guest. It is not a coincidence that my data has a direct relationship with data published by other websites, and thats why I base my opinion as I do.

The same experts who swore blind that Warburtons tackle was "yellow at worst" having not attending the press conference only a few days previously where the IRB had reminded everyone about the memo theyd sent out twice already?


It may be true in this cas ethat the virus wasnt still affecting them.
Its also true that the ABs as with many other teams dont like to be seen to be making excuses.
Its also absurd to try and argue that they wouldnt be denuded by fatigue at this stage in their season. If they werent then they need a stern talking to for taking the last 9 months at a canter.

PSW

I actually remember that the argument wasn't about the tackle in isolation, but it was treated so specially when there were numerous cases of similar/worse tackles that went unpunished or were yellow carded.

thebluesmancometh

If there are teams of Physiologists, Analysts and performance experts then why was not one players altered pre match by the coaching staff? Remember that the ABs are probably the most professional rugby team in the game. I doubt they would leave anything to chance.

Could it be true that out of the 40 odd touring party inc. players, coaches and staff that the worst 23 and 15 in particular were the players playing the game?

These players would be assessed by doctors who as you say... know the players bodies better than the players do.
Would these doctors lie to coaching staff on a specific players condition... remember this ain't a world cup final, its a end of season friendly.... they will not be robbing them of their dreams.
These doctors would be fired/disciplined for withholding such information.

So why were their no changes?

Rational thinking would suggest because it wasn't as big a deal as you make out... at least from a medical point of view.

Could it have impacted their preparation... perhaps, but how much preparation would a team need who has played together for the last 5 months bar the odd change here and there?

[quote="thebluesmancometh"

Then regarding pundits and 'experts' they are selected and paid to air 'their opinions' because they are popular, not because they know anything. [/quote]

I have to dispute this....Jiffy and Guscott - popular???

thebluesmancometh wrote:Myster

You can't rule out end of season fatigue besause only one team was at the end of their season, England int season hase just begun!!

You could argue for the first game of the AI's being unfair on NH teams because the SH teams have been together so long and are battle ready, but last game of the season is certainly in favour of the NH team IMHO.

but surely you know that this could be an effect before hand and take a decent mixed squad to counter that issue.