Rate these international outside centres from their stats

Rate these players

In the attachment, there is a table with the playing statistics for 5 games for 5 International Outside Centres.

Looking at the stats can you rate each of the marks out of 10 as to how good you think they are.

For example, Centre Z = 6/10 and so on.
Then, rate them in order (1-6) of who you think is best.
Give reasons why you rate one player over another - could be for their defence, linebreaking ability, passing etc -  
Since these stats are real, try and name them then.

Just something to do to fill in an idle moment in the silly season!



UPDATED FULL STATS TABLE HERE (including Try Assists & Tries).

As Player B must be manu tuilagi - of course he is the best

Or using my super dooper comparative analysis algorithm the order is:

1= D & F
3= B & E
5 C
6 A

Are their stats for the quality of the kick? Defenders drawn when dummy running? The space given to the winger when passing. What about tries? Assists? Where the metres were made on the pitch? The importance of kick, pass, run in the context of the game? Positioning in defence to make a tackle? Where was the penatly conceeded? Did it stop a certain try? Was it stupid?
 
These stats mean nothing without context. There is no point in running 99 metres only to give the ball away just before the line and the team not scoring.

Agree with the Goon.

Stats without context is just that stats.

And this coming from a stats freak.

the-goon wrote:Are their stats for the quality of the kick?  No. But since they are all international centres, I'd imagine they wouldn't try it too much if they were not good at it. There is one Player who doesn't kick at all.

Defenders drawn when dummy running? The space given to the winger when passing. What about tries? Assists? Where the metres were made on the pitch? The importance of kick, pass, run in the context of the game? Positioning in defence to make a tackle? Where was the penatly conceeded? Did it stop a certain try? Was it stupid? I left out try assists because that is meaninless. A try assist can be for being the last man to pass, where as a centre might have created the whole move and isn't rewarded with it. Penalties conceeded - - 1 penalty in 5 games isn't huge. A penalty per game for a centre is. Defence - most international defences are well organised, so positioning will generally be very good. Generally, missing a tackle is an error, but I wouldn't be too hard on centres missing the odd tackle. A very hard position to defend.
 
These stats mean nothing without context. There is no point in running 99 metres only to give the ball away just before the line and the team not scoring. Its a bit of fun to test yourself. Thats all.

edit:   With regard to metres made on the pitch - you will get a fair idea at how good their runs are by the no. of turnovers they concede.

By the way - all the opposition used are 6Ns teams (i.e., SA centre v 5 6Nations teams).

I can't see the attachment but if there's a player listed who is pretty much awesome in every department, he won't be Nick De Luca.....

LondonTiger wrote:As Player B must be manu tuilagi - of course he is the best

Or using my super dooper comparative analysis algorithm the order is:

1= D & F
3= B & E
5   C
6   A

Thanks - would you like to hazard a guess as to who they are.

Will give results when a few more people have had a go!

I left out try assists because that is meaninless. A try assist can be for being the last man to pass, where as a centre might have created the whole move and isn't rewarded with it

 
That's my point sin. Context. Stats mean nothing without it!
Rugby is far too complicated a game to rely exclusively on a select few stats. There are just too many factors involved.
 
Also, I reckon Centre A is BOD, which is probably the entire point of this article; to make him look bad. And I'm guessing Earls is in there somewhere with "better" stats inferring that he is better than BOD. Nice try.

the-goon wrote:

I left out try assists because that is meaninless. A try assist can be for being the last man to pass, where as a centre might have created the whole move and isn't rewarded with it

 
That's my point sin. Context. Stats mean nothing without it!
Rugby is far too complicated a game to rely exclusively on a select few stats. There are just too many factors involved.
 
Also, I reckon Centre A is BOD, which is probably the entire point of this article; to make him look bad. And I'm guessing Earls is in there somewhere with "better" stats inferring that he is better than BOD. Nice try.

If you are worried about some players looking better than others don't look at the thread. You are not forced to participate in it, but I certainly found some interesting attributes of players that I would never have thought of before - for instance, I'd never have guessed who the top tackler is

If you are so anxious about the Try Assists & Tries, I'll give you the list of games and you can argue their effectiveness later.

So who are they??

Can we have some clues.

Random guess:

A, Drico
B, Davies
c, AAC
d, Tuilagi
e, Roberts
f, Conrad Smith

How about give us the names and we match them to their stats?

There are 6 of them, they will be Drico, Davies, Tuilagi, Masi, Lamont and Rougerie at a guess

GunsGerms wrote:So who are they??

Can we have some clues.

Random guess:

A, Drico
B, Davies
c, AAC
d, Tuilagi
e, Roberts
f, Conrad Smith

How about give us the names and we match them to their stats?

I want you to rate them first (1-6) - kind of like a blind tasting:D  Hint, you got one of them right!

One of them is Keith Earls. If I had to say anyone it would be B. Stats are an overused commodity in a lot of ways. The eyeball test is more important. The game will never lie.

Ok then.

D,E-6
A-3
B,F-5
c-4

A is definitely Drico.
F is probably Earls

ChequeredJersey wrote:There are 6 of them, they will be Drico, Davies, Tuilagi, Masi, Lamont and Rougerie at a guess

Youre probably right actually

Thomond wrote:One of them is Keith Earls. If I had to say anyone it would be B. Stats are an overused commodity in a lot of ways. The eyeball test is more important. The game will never lie.

One of them is Keith Earls alright.

See if you can pick out Conrad Smith?

PS - and people never see what they want to see I suppose  (probably why stats are used as much as they are).

But what if it's Lydiate, Thomond? How does the eye see all the unseen work?

A: A hint of gooseberry with a sawdust finish.

B: A buttery chocolate heart capped off with a bitter almond finish.

C: A green grass background with a hint of acidic dog pee.

D: A supreme all-rounded wine with no perceptible faults.

E: A sturdy oak driven red with a clinical finish.

F: A full bodied, robust red with passionfruit fighting to be noticed on the palate

That's my blind tasting, though I'm afraid I was very, very, very drunk.

You can sepnd a game watching a player Kia, it takes a bit of concentration ,same with video analysis work (I did work on all 3 Lions tests takes a lot of time but good fun, will link if anyone wants to see it). I would love a service from the ERC or IRB where you can purchase a service that shows all the cameras they use during games and you can watch games or certain aspects from certain angles. They do it for NFL games and possibly for another couple of sports.

Sin, I would agree with you but if you look closely you can diffrentiate between what's right and what people are seeing themselves(just as a small sample I blamed Davies for AAC's second test try and caught flak from Welsh fans)

Thomond, people tend to look for and comment on what they want to see. For instance, Earls got a lot of flack for not passing to BOD in the 6Nations, yet no one commented on BOD's failure to pass to Earls in the same match when Earls was 2 metres from the line with a clear run-in.

Earls has become an easy scapegoat at times. Not saying he isn't deserving of any flak which he is as he has had some poor moments but he seems to come under greater scrutiny then others. He stands out in games due to his shaved head (if you ever read Moneyball, it's actually a thing that can screw up your scouting, would recommend the book even if you don't like baseball I loved the book and not a baseball fan!) which can be both good and bad.

BOD can be a bit immune to criticism based on who he is that's more in the Irish media though. I wasn't surprised he was srop didn't fit the bill for Gatland.

I know Thomond. I was only taking the epistle to the Colossians. I'd very much like to see that link.

Sin é, just as people can see what they want to see, so too can they extrapolate certain statistics to suit their agenda. 73 % of people know that.

This is all you need to know about stats.




Might post a thread on it later Kia, with all the test stuff I did.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I know Thomond. I was only taking the epistle to the Colossians. I'd very much like to see that link.

Sin é, just as people can see what they want to see, so too can they extrapolate certain statistics to suit their agenda. 73 % of people know that.

Absolutely Kia, thats why I'm trying to remove the agendas by comparing players stats. Surprising there is so much resistence to just rating those players on their statistics - its not as if any of them are standout poor. Its like people know they have an agenda and they don't want to get caught out on their favourite!

This is why I keep saying the most flexible, fungible thing in the world is a hard and fast number.  To perform the exercise you are asking is something for statisticians, not a bunch of Rugby players and supporters.  

Two players with identical stats:
In different teams playing different styles might have very different stats, but doesn't measure 'better'..  
A player in a defense oriented team would probably have 'worse' stats than one in an attack oriented team, but still might be the 'better' player.
In fact, if a player with so-called 'worse' stats plays in a worse team, might indeed be better, and possibly quite better.

Therefore, I can't take this ride with you, mates.  Stats without context tell us nada, naught, nil, nuttin'.

Its more like people know what you are up to Sin. There is clearly a point you are trying to make. Just out with it already.

I always assumed the percentage from Homer was higher than 40 per cent.

These stats seem to be taken from just one game. Even though it's difficult to prioritise certain stats over others my personal preference is for defensive stats such as tackles missed and turned overs (even though a turned over comes from an attack) to be as low as possible. Kicks don't tell the story but a picture tells a thousand words. The same for metres run, passing and breaks made and the number of offloads.

It's an interesting exercise but can we at least know how many centres per country from your list and whether any of these stats are taken from the same game?

Dr Grey, there isn't a lot between all the teams involved (with the exception of Conrad Smith & the ABs). All the games selected are against 6Ns teams (most recent). I would have taken the stats for Conrad Smith against France from France's last game there on their tour this season.

Why don't you take this opportunity to prove that stats don't tell you anything?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I always assumed the percentage from Homer was higher than 40 per cent.

These stats seem to be taken from just one game. Even though it's difficult to prioritise certain stats over others my personal preference is for defensive stats such as tackles missed and turned overs (even though a turned over comes from an attack) to be as low as possible. Kicks don't tell the story but a picture tells a thousand words. The same for metres run, passing and breaks made and the number of offloads.

It's an interesting exercise but can we at least know how many centres per country from your list and whether any of these stats are taken from the same game?

The Stats are from 5 games (their most recent there against 6Ns teams).

One Starting Outside Centre per country. If a centre got injured, I included their replacement's stats if they were on for a substantial amount of time.

Quite a few of the stats would come from the same game (i.e., Davies v Manu/BOD).

Its up to you if you rate defence more than attack (and you can get an idea how successful they are by number of missed tackles, or the number of times a player makes ground by the number of turnovers conceeded).

Sin é wrote:Dr Grey, there isn't a lot between all the teams involved (with the exception of Conrad Smith & the ABs). All the games selected are against 6Ns teams (most recent). I would have taken the stats for Conrad Smith against France from France's last game there on their tour this season.

Why don't you take this opportunity to prove that stats don't tell you anything?

Mate, I didn't say stats tell us nothing. But it is the context for the numbers which give the meaning to the numbers. Not the numbers by themselves. Can't go there.

Can't or won't doc?

13540

78923

34502

23012

23293

Which woman would you like to go home with?

All of them at the same time?

34502 has a big nose.

She can iron my shirts then.

After the stress of the Lions, I must say 606 is a jovial, amusing place to be. You're all barking mad but you're jolly good fun. Much like 78923.

doctor_grey wrote:

Sin é wrote:Dr Grey, there isn't a lot between all the teams involved (with the exception of Conrad Smith & the ABs). All the games selected are against 6Ns teams (most recent). I would have taken the stats for Conrad Smith against France from France's last game there on their tour this season.

Why don't you take this opportunity to prove that stats don't tell you anything?

Mate, I didn't say stats tell us nothing.  But it is the context for the numbers which give the meaning to the numbers.  Not the numbers by themselves.  Can't go there.

Numbers can give meaning to numbers - for instance, making 41 tackles and missing 1 would show that we have a very, very good defender here.

If you make 20 runs of 10 metres each and get turned over 50% of the time, you'd need to work on your game a bit.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Can't or won't doc?

13540

78923

34502

23012

23293

Which woman would you like to go home with?

Kia - i'd hang onto the wan who would buy me 7 pints on a night out, washes & irons 8 shirts every week, cooks dinner 9/10 times, spends no more than 2 minutes a day on twitter, and no more than 3 minutes a day on facebook!

But you'd run away from the one that weighs 789 kilos and has 23 eyes locked on you right now. Stats don't lie!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:But you'd run away from the one that weighs 789 kilos and has 23 eyes locked on you right now. Stats don't lie!

How are they lieing? I'd know without having to look that they weighed 789 kilos and had 23 eyes.   If I didn't look though, I might be missing something.

You'd be missing a few limbs best case scenario.

Kick - is it good to kick or not? Did the player kick when there was a 3 on 1 overlap outside him, or was he the last line of defence punting for touch?
Pass - Does a high number mean the player has good distribution skills or is he putting his team mates under pressure rather than going into contact?
Run - Is the player getting slow service behind the gainline or is he grazing in open space?
These 'stats' tell nothing of the decision making capabilities of the player or the context behind them.

Context is everything with such a small sample size. If they were to be rated purely as a statistical exercise then the data would need to encompass at least 20 games and probably 30. Over only five games with no context, I would go for the alphabetical ranking laid out as it has just as much statistical validity as any other measure.

Outside center ranking:

1. D
2. F
3. B
4. E
5. C
6. A

I'm guessing that these stats prove comprehensively, and inarguably, that Keith Earls is the best centre in the world and, in fact, the centre of our universe, around which everything else turns.

Sin, can you do the same for blindside flankers? Let's see if POM's the best in the world.

Murray and Zebo you could probably do at the same time...

These are centres playing against the same team (whose tactics or personnel are not going to vary that much).

We're comparing them to each other (i.e., Player A is more likely to Pass than Player B, who is most likely to Kick).

I'd imagine that all teams would be kicking a lot (grubbers etc) against Wales to try and get behind their blitz defence.

All will be revealed when you see the full stats.

It wouldn't be possible to do it over 30 games as there would be too many variables between teams and it would have to be over a much longer period (then you have injury etc).

There is a context, 5 games (as in a 6Ns campaign) where the teams all play each other (with additional SH centres who play NH teams) at a similar stage in the season.

Don Alfonso wrote:I'm guessing that these stats prove comprehensively, and inarguably, that Keith Earls is the best centre in the world and, in fact, the centre of our universe, around which everything else turns.

Sin, can you do the same for blindside flankers? Let's see if POM's the best in the world.

Murray and Zebo you could probably do at the same time...

Well Don, why don't you use the stats to prove that Keith Earls is the worst centre in the world.

Go on, pick him out (he should be the lad with the most missed tackles and least passes).  

Or he'll be the one who can't hold down a position in the Irish team for love nor money.  

Sin é wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:I'm guessing that these stats prove comprehensively, and inarguably, that Keith Earls is the best centre in the world and, in fact, the centre of our universe, around which everything else turns.

Sin, can you do the same for blindside flankers? Let's see if POM's the best in the world.

Murray and Zebo you could probably do at the same time...

Well Don, why don't you use the stats to prove that Keith Earls is the worst centre in the world.

Go on, pick him out (he should be the lad with the most missed tackles and least passes).  

Why would I bother?

a) Keith Earls is not the worst centre in the world.

b) These stats are meaningless, and can't be used to prove anything other than that some people have too much time on their hands.


I hate it when people post on a thread about how rubbish or meaningless that thread is, when they could just ignore it or choose not to contribute. So I am going to do that.

Word to your mother.

A bit late for not doing that Don, though there is no need to hate anyone (including yourself) for doing something like that on a silly season thread.

PS - I'll look forward to your comments when I publish the full details of matches & personnel.

Sin é wrote:A bit late for not doing that Don, though there is no need to hate anyone (including yourself) for doing something like that on a silly season thread.

Oh, I don't hate the people, I hate the act of doing it. Love the sinner, hate the sin etc. (Is there a good secular analogy for that? I couldn't think of one.)

And certainly not myself. No-one could ever hate me. Honestly. No one. I'm like a rainbow wrapped in sunbeams and chocolate.

Don Alfonso wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:I'm guessing that these stats prove comprehensively, and inarguably, that Keith Earls is the best centre in the world and, in fact, the centre of our universe, around which everything else turns.

Sin, can you do the same for blindside flankers? Let's see if POM's the best in the world.

Murray and Zebo you could probably do at the same time...

Well Don, why don't you use the stats to prove that Keith Earls is the worst centre in the world.

Go on, pick him out (he should be the lad with the most missed tackles and least passes).  

Why would I bother?

a) Keith Earls is not the worst centre in the world.

b) These stats are meaningless, and can't be used to prove anything other than that some people have too much time on their hands.


I hate it when people post on a thread about how rubbish or meaningless that thread is, when they could just ignore it or choose not to contribute. So I am going to do that.

Word to your mother.

I hate it when people do that too vanilla ice.

GunsGerms wrote:I hate it when people do that too vanilla ice.

Wash your mouth out.


Freeze! Rock!