Team of the 6N tournament

by HongKongCherry Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:05 pm

Mike Brown
Andrew Trimble
Brian O'Driscoll
Gordon D'Arcy
Jonny May
Jonathan Sexton
Conor Murray
Cian Healy
Leonardo Ghiraldini
Mike Ross
Devin Toner
Alun Wyn Jones
Peter O'Mahony
Chris Robshaw
Dave Denton

...as according to mathematical analysis of performance by Accenture http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/revealed-official-six-nations-2014-6840318

Not sure many people would choose that exact XV, but interesting to see that these were deemed the most effective players.

by mystiroakey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:08 pm

I thought may did well . so I am glad something has backed me up!!

by whocares Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:11 pm

mystiroakey wrote:I thought may did well . so I am glad something has backed me up!!

maybe he just ran a lot Wink

by Barney McGrew did it Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:14 pm

And I thought we'd all agreed BOD was a bit mediocre this 6N?

by mystiroakey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:15 pm

Johnny may can run forwards mate... But he does it sideways.

Great skills. Bambozzles the other team.

No seriously look. Even with his sideways runs . its still effectively switching play and retaining possession.. He has a future and is slippery

by lostinwales Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:24 pm

9 Irish. 3 English 1 each of the rest. Wow.

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:25 pm

Barney McGrew did it wrote:And I thought we'd all agreed BOD was a bit mediocre this 6N?

You guys did.
We though wouldn't have changed him for any of the young fancy steppers on any other sides Wink

by mystiroakey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:25 pm

Well the system seems flawed. Care was outstanding.

But anyway. Stats are only as good as the data and how its used

by ChequeredJersey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:33 pm

Care was second on the 6 Nations official statistical analysis so obviously the two systems were looking at different things

by whocares Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:34 pm

lostinwales wrote:9 Irish. 3 English 1 each of the rest. Wow.

not quite as there is no French. The Algorithm could not deal with us lot

jokes appart it is still a decent side so the parameters mus tbe relevant

by Barney McGrew did it Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:41 pm

HongKongCherry wrote:
Mike Brown Yes
Andrew Trimble Yes
Brian O'Driscoll Hmmm probably
Gordon D'Arcy No one shone
Jonny May Ahhh no - Huget
Jonathan Sexton Hmmm without his kicking boot him or OF
Conor Murray Obvious typo - Care
Cian Healy Didn't really get his head in the right place, but ok
Leonardo Ghiraldini Really?
Mike Ross Yes
Devin Toner Look this really isn't funny - the 2 Ls
Alun Wyn Jones see above
Peter O'Mahony Maybe just
Chris Robshaw Yes
Dave Denton Competing with Walsh for the nicest hair of the 6N got him noticed

...as according to mathematical analysis of performance by Accenture http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/revealed-official-six-nations-2014-6840318

Not sure many people would choose that exact XV, but interesting to see that these were deemed the most effective players.

by **Notch** Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:50 pm

But these are the STATS. The STATS don't lie folks.

Wink

We do tend to remember the most eye-catching parts of a performance and only appreciate certain smaller but important contributions on a second viewing, detached from the emotional side of being a fan- I know I do. Stats are a useful aid for our pretty hit and miss human memories.

But there are plenty of things that are unquantifiable too.

It does give me some satisfaction when I see Andrew Trimble ahead of North in a team like the one produced by Accenture, because I suspect the reason North is in so many peoples teams is a great performance against Scotland and a few high-profile line breaks and tries- and people think, oh George North the Lions wing. Yeah, I'll have him. As opposed to Trimble who had much more influence in the games he was in in more subtle ways, through his kick chase and the short, unglamorous carries in midfield that keep a move going etc. as well as matching North on the try count.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:53 pm

But the players picked arent the same ones selected by other stat analysis. The player of the tournament selection is flawed but also picked on stat analysis

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:54 pm

The Official Unseen Work Stats!!!!!!!!!! Finally! We were all looking forward to them. Wink

Our case is proven about POM.

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:56 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:But the players picked arent the same ones selected by other stat analysis. The player of the tournament selection is flawed but also picked on stat analysis

We'll have a play off game to decide which Stat Analysis team wins

by ChequeredJersey Thu 20 Mar 2014, 2:58 pm

Hard work for the players in both sides

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:03 pm

It'll separate the men from the boys if they can score for both sides whilst holding themselves up for a maul turnover

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:08 pm

Notch wrote:But these are the STATS. The STATS don't lie folks.

We do tend to remember the most eye-catching parts of a performance and only appreciate certain smaller but important contributions on a second viewing, detached from the emotional side of being a fan- I know I do. Stats are a useful aid for our pretty hit and miss human memories.

But there are plenty of things that are unquantifiable too.

It does give me some satisfaction when I see Andrew Trimble ahead of North in a team like the one produced by Accenture, because I suspect the reason North is in so many peoples teams is a great performance against Scotland and a few high-profile line breaks and tries- and people think, oh George North the Lions wing. Yeah, I'll have him. As opposed to Trimble who had much more influence in the games he was in in more subtle ways, through his kick chase and the short, unglamorous carries in midfield that keep a move going etc. as well as matching North on the try count.

Stats don't lie. True.
If you can trust the veracity of the collated dataset.
Otherwise it forever open to criticisms of subjective bias.

by Poorfour Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:10 pm

It's all down to how they score and weight different actions. For instance, England's internal analysis regards a speedbump tackle (where you slow someone down but don't stop him) as a completed tackle, because the cover defence wil do the rest. Opta, I suspect, doesn't.

Players whose contribution is different from the norm for their position may not get picked up. Does the system rate Launchbury's auxiliary 6 style effectively? I'd guess not.

All of which said, you could make a case for most of the players picked. The headscratchers are Ghiraldini, May and Murray for Care.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:20 pm

wiki wrote:Regardless of the field of study or preference for defining data (quantitative, qualitative), accurate data collection is essential to maintaining the integrity of research. Both the selection of appropriate data collection instruments (existing, modified, or newly developed) and clearly delineated instructions for their correct use reduce the likelihood of errors occurring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collection

by No 7&1/2 Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:23 pm

Part of it is based on social media also. Barking mad.

by lostinwales Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:30 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Notch wrote:But these are the STATS. The STATS don't lie folks.

We do tend to remember the most eye-catching parts of a performance and only appreciate certain smaller but important contributions on a second viewing, detached from the emotional side of being a fan- I know I do. Stats are a useful aid for our pretty hit and miss human memories.

But there are plenty of things that are unquantifiable too.

It does give me some satisfaction when I see Andrew Trimble ahead of North in a team like the one produced by Accenture, because I suspect the reason North is in so many peoples teams is a great performance against Scotland and a few high-profile line breaks and tries- and people think, oh George North the Lions wing. Yeah, I'll have him. As opposed to Trimble who had much more influence in the games he was in in more subtle ways, through his kick chase and the short, unglamorous carries in midfield that keep a move going etc. as well as matching North on the try count.

Stats don't lie. True.
If you can trust the veracity of the collated dataset.
Otherwise it forever open to criticisms of subjective bias.

Mark Twain quote (I believe) - There are lies, damn lies, and statistics....

by GunsGerms Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:32 pm

Brian O'Driscoll's was still only nominated because he is retiring though. Nothing to do with being outstanding. picard

by beshocked Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:33 pm

Underrated XV in comparison.

15.Kearney
14.Huget
13.Burrell
12.Twelvetrees
11.North
10.Farrell
9.Care
8.Faletau
7.Warburton
6.Wood
5.Launchbury
4.Lawes
3.Cittadini
2.Hartley
1.Marler

by No 7&1/2 Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:36 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Brian O'Driscoll's was still only nominated because he is retiring though. Nothing to do with being outstanding.

Now that I know that part of this scoring is down to social media my thoughts on this seem more supported. Who's going to get more headlines or trends or whatever it is on twitter after and before games than the retiring legend?

by Guest Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:38 pm

Notch wrote:But these are the STATS. The STATS don't lie folks.

We do tend to remember the most eye-catching parts of a performance and only appreciate certain smaller but important contributions on a second viewing, detached from the emotional side of being a fan- I know I do. Stats are a useful aid for our pretty hit and miss human memories.

But there are plenty of things that are unquantifiable too.

It does give me some satisfaction when I see Andrew Trimble ahead of North in a team like the one produced by Accenture, because I suspect the reason North is in so many peoples teams is a great performance against Scotland and a few high-profile line breaks and tries- and people think, oh George North the Lions wing. Yeah, I'll have him. As opposed to Trimble who had much more influence in the games he was in in more subtle ways, through his kick chase and the short, unglamorous carries in midfield that keep a move going etc. as well as matching North on the try count.

I agree there are things that are unquantifiable. One of those is the effect North's ability, size, pace and, yes, reputation have on oppositions. He invariably gets attention from more than one person when he has the ball in traffic, so regularly taking more defenders out of the game than Trimble. That's pretty 'subtle' - how do the stats deal with it?
Trimble is good, don't get me wrong, but don't forget that, in the Wales win over France, North played in the centre yet still managed to score a try out on the left.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:39 pm

jonny may - WTF????

Talk about how to totally undermine oneself!!

by Cyril Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:40 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Brian O'Driscoll's was still only nominated because he is retiring though.

That's a slightly controversial view Guns, but I think there's some truth in it

by TopHat24/7 Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:41 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Johnny may can run forwards mate... But he does it sideways.

Great skills. Bambozzles the other team.

No seriously look. Even with his sideways runs . its still effectively switching play and retaining possession.. He has a future and is slippery

Bamboozles his only bloody team, that's the problem!!!

AWJ ahead of either England lock is BS also.

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:42 pm

beshocked wrote:Underrated XV in comparison.

15.Kearney
14.Huget
13.Burrell
12.Twelvetrees
11.North
10.Farrell
9.Care
8.Faletau
7.Warburton
6.Wood
5.Launchbury
4.Lawes
3.Cittadini
2.Hartley
1.Marler

Only one Irishman in the Underrated XV? mad

Anyway, yeah.... that's the alternative side we'd need for a play-off. Which side would win?

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 3:48 pm

optimist wrote:
Trimble is good, don't get me wrong, but don't forget that, in the Wales win over France, North played in the centre yet still managed to score a try out on the left.

So he doesn't know where the centre is? We usually call wanderers like that Wings who don't like being Centres. We also call it typical Centre activity to score a try out on the wing.

by Guest Thu 20 Mar 2014, 6:32 pm

SecretFly wrote:
optimist wrote:
Trimble is good, don't get me wrong, but don't forget that, in the Wales win over France, North played in the centre yet still managed to score a try out on the left.
So he doesn't know where the centre is? We usually call wanderers like that Wings who don't like being Centres. We also call it typical Centre activity to score a try out on the wing.

I think North does know where the centre is. He played quite well as a centre in the win against France, keeping Basteraud quiet for most of the game. Did you see what Basteraud was doing to the Irish centre in the final match? The try North managed to score out on the left was not a typical "winger's" try. Like any good three-quarter with pace he followed up and capitalised on French fumbling. He wasn't the only Welsh three-quarter to be in with a shout of scoring, just the quickest.

by **Notch** Thu 20 Mar 2014, 6:37 pm

This is my point- George North is a great player, probably a better player than Trimble. But your talking about a couple of good games from North and five good games from Trimble back to back.

Thats why he had a better tournament. North is an exceptional player, but when the Welsh pack and halfbacks are misfiring the outside backs lose out. It's not about pointing to a few high-profile plays by North. It's about metres carried, tackles made, rucks hit. And when you add up all the stats, you sometimes get a better picture of who really was crucial.

by SecretFly Thu 20 Mar 2014, 6:39 pm

North is a very good player, to be sure. But the France that turned up against Wales in Wales wasn't anything like the same team that turned up against Ireland in Paris.

Most neutral observers acknowledge that France finally turned up to actually play real rugby against Ireland.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 20 Mar 2014, 11:20 pm

the thing is, you can argue that stats are objective, etc. that North wouldn't get picked in any team of the tournament if he weren't George North, etc. but then you get a system which somehow makes out Murray to have played better than Care, and basically the whole argument falls down right there. No one, not even the most die-hard Irish fans would put Murray ahead of Care in a team of the tournament.

What statistics are they using? that's the question. Care made more breaks, scored more tries, more points, I would guess made more meters ball in hand, etc. so what statistics make Murray a better SH allegedly (over the course of the tournament)?

Then as someone else pointed out the second rows are probably picked on "traditional" second row jobs: line-out, scrum, carries, which removes the important qualities of L+L who do a lot of flanker work as well (tackling, turnovers).

Finally, May? Really? I'm assuming it's because Huget played on the opposite wing so can't be considered, but still there are a few I'd have above May...

by ME-109 Thu 20 Mar 2014, 11:56 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:the thing is, you can argue that stats are objective, etc. that North wouldn't get picked in any team of the tournament if he weren't George North, etc. but then you get a system which somehow makes out Murray to have played better than Care, and basically the whole argument falls down right there. No one, not even the most die-hard Irish fans would put Murray ahead of Care in a team of the tournament.

What statistics are they using? that's the question. Care made more breaks, scored more tries, more points, I would guess made more meters ball in hand, etc. so what statistics make Murray a better SH allegedly (over the course of the tournament)?

Then as someone else pointed out the second rows are probably picked on "traditional" second row jobs: line-out, scrum, carries, which removes the important qualities of L+L who do a lot of flanker work as well (tackling, turnovers).

Finally, May? Really? I'm assuming it's because Huget played on the opposite wing so can't be considered, but still there are a few I'd have above May...

Boo hoo.

by Guest Fri 21 Mar 2014, 7:20 am

SecretFly wrote:North is a very good player, to be sure. But the France that turned up against Wales in Wales wasn't anything like the same team that turned up against Ireland in Paris.

Most neutral observers acknowledge that France finally turned up to actually play real rugby against Ireland.

I agree with all of it. The point is that your comment is to do with perception and judgement rather than stats, which I believe are equally if not more important. It doesn't seem to have struck you that one of the reasons for France's weak performance in Cardiff was because some of their players, going into the match, didn't really believe they could win. And North's big reputation and huge ability contributed to that feeling, even if stats suggest that Trimble did more over the whole tournament. Players aren't robots, they're as prone to emotion as anyone else, the French team perhaps more than most. Thus in front of a home crowd in the final game against Ireland, France played as well as they could. As I mentioned before, Basteraud in Paris was a real handful for Ireland, whereas in Cardiff he was pretty much nullified. Lest it be forgotten, the margin of Wale's victory over France was a record. When considering North, the term "unquantifiable" - as opposed to stats - really means something.

by Poorfour Fri 21 Mar 2014, 7:44 am

optimist wrote:
SecretFly wrote:North is a very good player, to be sure. But the France that turned up against Wales in Wales wasn't anything like the same team that turned up against Ireland in Paris.

Most neutral observers acknowledge that France finally turned up to actually play real rugby against Ireland.

I agree with all of it. The point is that your comment is to do with perception and judgement rather than stats, which I believe are equally if not more important. It doesn't seem to have struck you that one of the reasons for France's weak performance in Cardiff was because some of their players, going into the match, didn't really believe they could win. And North's big reputation and huge ability contributed to that feeling, even if stats suggest that Trimble did more over the whole tournament. Players aren't robots, they're as prone to emotion as anyone else, the French team perhaps more than most. Thus in front of a home crowd in the final game against Ireland, France played as well as they could. As I mentioned before, Basteraud in Paris was a real handful for Ireland, whereas in Cardiff he was pretty much nullified. Lest it be forgotten, the margin of Wale's victory over France was a record. When considering North, the term "unquantifiable" - as opposed to stats - really means something.

Follow that logic to its conclusion, and it's effectively saying that North is a busted flush against Ireland and England because they now know they can beat Wales. Argument doesn't hold water. It's more plausible that the French played like drains in Cardiff because the French rarely play well away from home and because they're French and there is no word in French for "consistency"

by Portnoy's Complaint Fri 21 Mar 2014, 8:58 am

mystiroakey wrote:Johnny may can run forwards mate... But he does it sideways.

Great skills. Bambozzles the other team.

No seriously look. Even with his sideways runs . its still effectively switching play and retaining possession.. He has a future and is slippery

Interesting. I don't think that May is the only winger ever in world rugby to have rushed around like a gadfly to the bemusement of his own team.

Let me think...
Habana

Campo

Duckworth

Lil' Shane...

Rubbish to a man - all of 'em.

by dummy_half Fri 21 Mar 2014, 1:06 pm

PC

Phil Ford, the GB rugby league winger of the 80s, was THE finest exponent of this approach - his philosophy was if he had no idea where he was going, what hope did the defenders have?

Admitedly, you can get away with this a bit more in RL because getting isolated from your support is not a big deal.

by mystiroakey Fri 21 Mar 2014, 1:17 pm

So you dont rate May then?

May is quality... He will come good soon.

Like i did with brown a couple of years ago . I will refer you all to my foresight in the future

by HongKongCherry Fri 21 Mar 2014, 1:33 pm

mystiroakey wrote:So you dont rate May then?

May is quality... He will come good soon.

Like i did with brown a couple of years ago . I will refer you all to my foresight in the future

I couldn't agree more. I do have a slightly bias view, however, I felt a lot of the criticism he has received have been unfounded and part of the motivation of posting this thread was to show that whilst May could have been better in the 6N, he was still very effective. Having seen the flair and creativity of Simpson-Daniel be wasted by England I would hate to see the same happen to May, who has the rare talent of being able to make something out of nothing.

by Guest Fri 21 Mar 2014, 3:43 pm

Poorfour wrote:
optimist wrote:
SecretFly wrote:North is a very good player, to be sure. But the France that turned up against Wales in Wales wasn't anything like the same team that turned up against Ireland in Paris.

Most neutral observers acknowledge that France finally turned up to actually play real rugby against Ireland.

I agree with all of it. The point is that your comment is to do with perception and judgement rather than stats, which I believe are equally if not more important. It doesn't seem to have struck you that one of the reasons for France's weak performance in Cardiff was because some of their players, going into the match, didn't really believe they could win. And North's big reputation and huge ability contributed to that feeling, even if stats suggest that Trimble did more over the whole tournament. Players aren't robots, they're as prone to emotion as anyone else, the French team perhaps more than most. Thus in front of a home crowd in the final game against Ireland, France played as well as they could. As I mentioned before, Basteraud in Paris was a real handful for Ireland, whereas in Cardiff he was pretty much nullified. Lest it be forgotten, the margin of Wale's victory over France was a record. When considering North, the term "unquantifiable" - as opposed to stats - really means something.

Follow that logic to its conclusion, and it's effectively saying that North is a busted flush against Ireland and England because they now know they can beat Wales. Argument doesn't hold water. It's more plausible that the French played like drains in Cardiff because the French rarely play well away from home and because they're French and there is no word in French for "consistency"

When you say the French rarely play well away from home that's short-sighted. In 2005 they beat England, Ireland and Italy away, ie. all their away games, in 2006 it was Wales, then in 2007 France won away against Italy, Ireland and England, i.e. all their away games, and in 2011 it was Ireland again. Plus Grand Slams in 2004 and 2010 when obviously they won all their away games. Oh, and the year before England won the RWC, France won all their away games to get a Grand Slam. The French certainly do win away from home in the 6 Nations - just not in the last 3 seasons.

by Poorfour Fri 21 Mar 2014, 3:50 pm

I think you were taking my post a little seriously there, optimist. The clue was in the claim that the French have no word for "consistency".

by Guest Fri 21 Mar 2014, 4:34 pm

Poorfour wrote:I think you were taking my post a little seriously there, optimist. The clue was in the claim that the French have no word for "consistency".

Are you sure about that? Which of these is closest : "cohérence", "consistence", "uniformité"?

by whocares Fri 21 Mar 2014, 4:39 pm

Regulier/regularite might be more appropriate in this context

by Sponsored content