Misleading Stats and Lazy Journalism.

First topic message reminder :

Sometimes stats are helpful. Like the statistic on the scoreboard. That's about it.

For instance. NZ are poised to become the most successful test nation ever, by eclipsing France's record tally of victories overall. But given that France have wedged in nearly 30% more test matches than NZ somehow, this is an utterly futile record. Right up there with the worlds record test try scorer.

Another irritation of mine is the way Sam Cane is being talked up in NZ media right for having a high statistic for "arrivals at rucks". No doubt the guy is athletic and gets around the park, but more important is what he does when he gets there. I don't care if he hits 70 rucks a game if he's utterly effectless when he gets there, or gives away penalties. Not saying the guy can't do his job, just that this stat is meaningless.

The next one is winning streaks. SA have 9, NZ have 6 on the trot. So what? one team will lose and what bearing on the result will the previous games have? None.

Percentage successful kicks. Again, says nothing about the record of a kicker against a given opponent, or take into account the elements of altitude or weather involved.

These things get bandied around to no end in the media, and I think they smack of lazy journalism or a writer without the ability to express a coherent opinion based on his or her own knowledge and ability to read the game or analyse the factors that are likely to be pertinent.

For example, I put it to you that NZ are already the most succesful test nation ever. And one more victory, or not, isn't going to change that.

I used to like the way that Chris Patterson was billed as Mr 100%. I think for something like 2 international seasons he didn't miss a kick at posts for Scotland.
But what wasn't mentioned is that most of his were in and around the 22m line - anything that was a bit further out or a bit trickier was given to Dan Parks to have a crack at - hence preserving the 100% record.