The Reliability of Rugby

Over in this thread, Feckless Rogue raised the following point:

Feckless Rogue wrote:A great game of rugby between two top sides is amazing. But a weak side simply can't hold back a strong side, like in soccer. In soccer Wales, if organized well could hold Brazil to a draw on a good day. In rugby it's simply not possible for a Portugal v New Zealand match to be anything other than a blow out.

I was just reading Jonah Lehrer's new blog (buyer beware: he's the bloke who was busted for plagiarism in a high profile instance) where he has a post on why we watch sport. In it, he cites someone else's theory on what makes a good sport. It's only a few paragraphs which you can read here:

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~nchristenfeld/Publications_files/Sports.pdf

I've no idea what data the brief study used, apart from the fact it is from league not international play, but both rugby codes score high on "reliability" versus other sports. Very roughly speaking, it's another way of making the same point as Feckless, which is that the superior team in rugby has a higher chance of converting their superiority into a win.

Who knows, more comprehensive data might turn up a wholly different conclusion but it does fit my general perception that giant-killing is a much rarer feat in rugby than, say, football.

Lehrer points out that this might have implications for the use of TMOs. Assuming that the use of video referees ensures more correct decisions (a big assumption) then it will tend to increase the "reliability" of a sport by confirming the edge of the superior team.

Of course, that sounds just like another way of saying we'll get more turn-ups if we have more refereeing blunders, which doesn't sound like a great aspiration.

I do wonder, though, whether we might eventually want to review how we use replacements, which is another route by which a team can assert its superiority.

Sadly this reliability theory goes out the window during World Cups.   

I was at Atletico Elche last night. A car crash of a game in the first half. I think the players' minds were on Tuesday's semi final against Chelsea because they looked disinterested and mentally inert rather than alert.

Atletico had the chances but Courtois made two very impressive saves. Atletico played better in the second half but they didn't convert a penalty and they fluffed a few other chances and a header and a penalty right near full time gave a flattering and yet otherwise fair two nil final score.

When Granada beat Barcelona 1 - 0 they only had 17 % possession. It is possible to park the bus in football but I think the following is representative of any sport: good teams convert their chances. They don't have to have anywhere near dominance in possession or necessarily the best players. But when the moments come, good teams convert those chances into points and keep out the opposition when they have chances to score. That is universal in any sport.

There are always big upsets in rugby. Even this year Edinburagh beating Munster in the HC, Grenoble beating Toulon in Toulon, The Force beating the chiefs, Connacht winning away in Toulose etc etc...

I know upsets are more likely in Soccer but The gap between Wales and Brazil in soccer is not even close to the gap between NZ and Portugal.

More games in football so more chance of an upset happening. How many games to significantly better teams play against significantly worse ones? Every 4 years with the WC where the weaker sides are hampered by scheduling? In football there is the FA every year were they play each other. And in the 100s of games occasionally there are upsets. But who's at the top of the league every year? The same teams. They tend to beat the weaker sides. Same in rugby. But we use it as an excuse not to share money play with the weaker sides.

Which makes this season for Atletico all the sweeter to follow.    

LeinsterFan4life wrote:There are always big upsets in rugby. Even this year Edinburagh beating Munster in the HC, Grenoble beating Toulon in Toulon, The Force beating the chiefs, Connacht winning away in Toulose etc etc...

I know upsets are more likely in Soccer but The gap between Wales and Brazil in soccer is not even close to the gap between NZ and Portugal.

?? NZ drew with Italy, Paraguay and Slovakia at the World cup and were one of only two unbeaten teams there. Wales werent there. Whats the point here?

Taylorman wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:There are always big upsets in rugby. Even this year Edinburagh beating Munster in the HC, Grenoble beating Toulon in Toulon, The Force beating the chiefs, Connacht winning away in Toulose etc etc...

I know upsets are more likely in Soccer but The gap between Wales and Brazil in soccer is not even close to the gap between NZ and Portugal.

?? NZ drew with Italy, Paraguay and Slovakia at the World cup and were one of only two unbeaten teams there. Wales werent there. Whats the point here?

Er, I think he means NZ/Portugal rugby.

Glad no one brought up NZ Tahiti in football. We were so close to beating the giants Tahiti to play in the Consederations Cup.   

Cyril wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:There are always big upsets in rugby. Even this year Edinburagh beating Munster in the HC, Grenoble beating Toulon in Toulon, The Force beating the chiefs, Connacht winning away in Toulose etc etc...

I know upsets are more likely in Soccer but The gap between Wales and Brazil in soccer is not even close to the gap between NZ and Portugal.

?? NZ drew with Italy, Paraguay and Slovakia at the World cup and were one of only two unbeaten teams there. Wales werent there. Whats the point here?

Er, I think he means NZ/Portugal rugby.

ok, from 8 matches Wales have beaten Brazil once, so the gulf is actually one match, and one drawn. The goal diff is 20-5. Thats over 60 years.

Would the AB Portugal gulf be that much more for the same number of matches, and its not as if Wales have never produced world class players...Portugal sure havnt.

NZ Wales might be a better comparison. We've probably got the edge on them ... In football.   

That is a massive difference!!! Portugal would cencede 100 points everytime they'd play NZ. Wales have a win and a draw? Thats pretty damn good all things considered!!!

On the whole Wales don't produce WC players...I'm pretty sure Bale is world class

Portugal dont have anything remotely like a Professional league, they all have 'jobs' and in comparison with Welsh Football are massively under resourced. That explains the difference adequately I'd say.

In football tactics can limit damage, which is why Wales could keep Brazil to a draw if they really wanted to, Chelsea played very negatively against Barcelona when they won the Champions League a couple of years back, they played all their players in their own half to prevent them from scoring. You cant do that in Rugby the better team will eventually score.

The main reason for there being more 'upsets' in soccer as opposed to rugby is the scoring system.

In soccer a weaker side can more easily keep the stronger away from scoring range - essentially the penalty area - and hope for a breakaway.  In rugby the scoring zone is effectively half the field, and there is no possibility of a weak side denying territory and possession to the stronger to that extent.

That's true though I'd argue scoring can be started from anywhere in both sports and so tactics play a part. Look at the goal against Barcelona by Bale in the Copa del Rey this year. Started from the back because Alves was up on attack and not covering on defence. Wouldn't have happened against Wales because Gatland seems to want to keep Halfpenny back on defence.

They're different sports but you can make parallels with the tactics of the coach. I see a team like Barcelona and I think of the recycling, possession kings like the Brumbies and the Wallabies of the 90s and England 2002-3, a team like Chelsea and their Champions win and Argentina's run in the 2007 RWC springs to mind, the containing, absorbing and counter-attack of Real Madrid and the ABs tactics are very similar.

Reliability for me comes down to how effective your tactics are and how well they are suited to breaking down your opposition. I'm sure Gatland has assessed his best chances of defeating SH opposition is by carrying out his team orders to perfection but unfortunately his team's inability to do so at key times as well as his stubborn persistence in implementing those tactics means that opposition coaches can rely on Wales to keep on doing what they have been doing. Sometimes upsets occur simply because a team does exactly the opposite of or, at least, strikingly different to what the opposition thought they were going to do.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I'm sure Gatland has assessed his best chances of defeating SH opposition is by carrying out his team orders to perfection but unfortunately his team's inability to do so at key times as well as his stubborn persistence in implementing those tactics means that opposition coaches can rely on Wales to keep on doing what they have been doing. Sometimes upsets occur simply because a team does exactly the opposite of or, at least, strikingly different to what the opposition thought they were going to do.  

Gatland found that the best way to beat SH opposition is to include English and Irish players in your side.

Don't start that again, Cyril.