Points spread per opponent this coming weekend

The fixtures this coming weekend might be a lot closer than many think. In fact looking at Argentina and South Africa, they are both on the wrong side of the ledger when you look at the average scores of their previous four meetings against their respective opponents for Saturday.

Here is a list of the last 4 meetings between each of these teams, I know I could go 10 matches 6 matches or whatever, but in all honesty if you go back too far you will find many of the players 10 matches or even 6 matches ago aren't playing this coming weekend.

Anyhow, this will give you an idea how close the teams are matched.


Scotland vs Argentina
Argentina 16 – 24 Scotland
Argentina 9 – 13 Scotland
Argentina 13 – 12 Scotland
Argentina 19 – 21 Scotland

Average score Argentina 14.25 – 17.5 Scotland

Wales vs Australia
Wales 23 – 25 Australia
Wales 19 – 21 Australia
Wales 12 – 14 Australia
Wales 26 – 30 Australia

Average score Wales 20.25 – 22.5 Australia

Ireland vs South Africa
Ireland 32 – 15 South Africa
Ireland 15 – 10 South Africa
Ireland 21 – 23 South Africa
Ireland 12 – 16 South Africa

Average score Ireland 20 – 16 South Africa

England vs New Zealand
England 22 – 30 New Zealand
England 15 – 20 New Zealand
England 27 – 28 New Zealand
England 13 – 36 New Zealand

Average score England 19.25 – 28.5 New Zealand

I read that England usually receive three times their average number of penalties at home at twickenham and only 1/10th of their yellow cards. Unsurprisingly their home record is much better although their average try count is statistically indisguishable. 

Some home advantage! 

There is no other team for which this is true.

Back that up with full stats or go away Tobes.

Average score Argentina 14.25 – 17.5 Scotland

So we are already winning morally?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Back that up with full stats or go away Tobes.

Here's the first one, on penalties conceded:

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3818_9477348,00.html

Raw stats:

http://www.espn.co.uk/statsguru/rugby/team/1.html?class=1;filter=advanced;ground=49;home_or_away=1;orderby=default;template=results;type=team

Better stats:

Your evidence is a Graham Henry whine, while your "stats" do not show penalties awarded or YCs.

In the last 12 months England played 11 tests, 5 home 6 away.

On average they conceded 9.6 penalties per match at home (opposition 11.6). Away they conceded on average 7.8 penalties per game (opposition 10.7).

This suggests that England are better disciplined, less penalised, away from home.

On the YC front they received none at home (opposition 2) and 3 away (opposition 3). This depsite averaging 3 poenalties less per match.

So in conclusion Home teams probably do not get as many YCs as they should (including England) while refs pick on us unfairly away from home.

You need to compare like for like opposition,
(And back that up with published stats.)And believe me, NZ have copped a lot of yellows at home - usually from the same referees, who have usually had to apologise afterwards.  No, agree with Henry, this is a cabbage patch phenomenon.

TobyBryant wrote:I read that England usually receive three times their average number of penalties at home at twickenham and only 1/10th of their yellow cards. Unsurprisingly their home record is much better although their average try count is statistically indisguishable. 

Some home advantage! 

There is no other team for which this is true.

This was mentioned by one person earlier this year specifically to England. Did you ever check this for other teams or just add the .... no other team part yourself?

Can you complain to the IRB is your opponent upsets the Averages?

SecretFly wrote:Can you complain to the IRB is your opponent upsets the Averages?

I don't see why not, if New Zealand can get referees to apologise, maybe the IRB can force your opponents to apologise

It must be nice though Bilt to at least have an idea how your side will play now. I mean its a more relaxing place to be than where I am, where I don't have a clue one more time how Ireland will play this one or whether they'll have the ammo to make a game of it at all.

It's always nervouse when your side cranks up again for a new season.

BB

The 32-15 match can't really be used as it occurred 8 years ago. How many players that day will play on Saturday?

Looked at the team that day and by my count... 3 of Ireland's 22 and 2 of the boks 22 will be playing on Saturday (5/44).

To be honest they've only played each other once in the last RWC cycle thus far so its difficult to tell. I would say SA probably have a 10 point margin looking at the sides though IMO.

George Carlin wrote:

Average score Argentina 14.25 – 17.5 Scotland

So we are already winning morally?

As opposed to immorally?
That is usually more fun.

It's a Statistical Average fa0019...so don't mess with it. I like it. It might change dramatically (and might Not!) at the weekend, but for now it looks nice on the wall.

SecretFly wrote:It must be nice though Bilt to at least have an idea how your side will play now.  I mean its a more relaxing place to be than where I am, where I don't have a clue one more time how Ireland will play this one or whether they'll have the ammo to make a game of it at all.

It's always nervouse when your side cranks up again for a new season.

True FLy, but we still have issues with which plan will be used and which players will be selected.

From my perspective there are still positions where we have worries as well

SecretFly wrote:It's a Statistical Average fa0019...so don't mess with it. I like it.  It might change dramatically (and might Not!) at the weekend, but for now it looks nice on the wall.

What and be favourites? Who wants that?

We're the underdog... no we're the underdog.... no we're the underdog... etc etc etc.

You'll even hear NZ probably say that when playing England at home.

fa0019 wrote:BB

The 32-15 match can't really be used as it occurred 8 years ago. How many players that day will play on Saturday?

Looked at the team that day and by my count... 3 of Ireland's 22 and 2 of the boks 22 will be playing on Saturday (5/44).

To be honest they've only played each other once in the last RWC cycle thus far so its difficult to tell. I would say SA probably have a 10 point margin looking at the sides though IMO.

FA, shhht, I am trying to make them look like the favourites.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's a Statistical Average fa0019...so don't mess with it. I like it.  It might change dramatically (and might Not!) at the weekend, but for now it looks nice on the wall.

What and be favourites? Who wants that?

We're the underdog... no we're the underdog.... no we're the underdog... etc etc etc.

You'll even hear NZ probably say that when playing England at home.

Call me dumb - but that's my mentality. That is to say, I don't like the tag of Underdog. To me it's an insult you try hard to offload as quickly as possible in any field, not something to be clinged to for comfort or for inspiration. If you need it, by definition you've spent a lifetime trying to shirk it.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's a Statistical Average fa0019...so don't mess with it. I like it.  It might change dramatically (and might Not!) at the weekend, but for now it looks nice on the wall.

What and be favourites? Who wants that?

We're the underdog... no we're the underdog.... no we're the underdog... etc etc etc.

You'll even hear NZ probably say that when playing England at home.

Call me dumb - but that's my mentality.  That is to say, I don't like the tag of Underdog.  To me it's an insult you try hard to offload as quickly as possible in any field, not something to be clinged to for comfort or for inspiration.  If you need it, by definition you've spent a lifetime trying to shirk it.

Yeah I've always preferred the king of the hill mentality myself. Its tougher to win with expectation than without for sure.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's a Statistical Average fa0019...so don't mess with it. I like it.  It might change dramatically (and might Not!) at the weekend, but for now it looks nice on the wall.

What and be favourites? Who wants that?

We're the underdog... no we're the underdog.... no we're the underdog... etc etc etc.

You'll even hear NZ probably say that when playing England at home.

Call me dumb - but that's my mentality.  That is to say, I don't like the tag of Underdog.  To me it's an insult you try hard to offload as quickly as possible in any field, not something to be clinged to for comfort or for inspiration.  If you need it, by definition you've spent a lifetime trying to shirk it.

Underdog tags is mostly for the benefit of the fans, we use it as an excuse when we lose, it supposedly softens the blow of defeat.

The word Underdog also gives lazy journalists a supposed licence to use another even more sickeningly dismissive word like: 'Spirited'

Glasgow recently beat Bath in a European game and I remember seeing one report call the 37-10 performance 'spirited'.  It was shorthand for saying the 'Underdog' won

Scotland have won their last 4 successive away games against argentina. Unfortunately we have also lost our last 4 successive home games against them. And we've played them twice on neutral territory and both times they knocked us out of the world cup. Perhaps the stats above are skewed by the fact that Arg. tend not to have their euro based players available when playing home "friendly" type test matches.

fa0019 wrote:BB

The 32-15 match can't really be used as it occurred 8 years ago. How many players that day will play on Saturday?

Looked at the team that day and by my count... 3 of Ireland's 22 and 2 of the boks 22 will be playing on Saturday (5/44).

To be honest they've only played each other once in the last RWC cycle thus far so its difficult to tell. I would say SA probably have a 10 point margin looking at the sides though IMO.

SA fans always give their side a 10 point plus margin v Ireland and yet the only game in the last 8 years that was won by more than a single score was the 32-15 hammering by Ireland on SA. The last two SA won were by 2 and 4 point margins and both teams had chances to win.

Some people never learn. That said in all fairness SA have improved a lot so maybe this time for the first time SA may manage a bigger margin especially given they have named an unchanged side, they are battle hardened after the 4 nations, have had a three week training camp, they have a massive bench and Ireland are missing lots of players and have spent very little time together.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:BB

The 32-15 match can't really be used as it occurred 8 years ago. How many players that day will play on Saturday?

Looked at the team that day and by my count... 3 of Ireland's 22 and 2 of the boks 22 will be playing on Saturday (5/44).

To be honest they've only played each other once in the last RWC cycle thus far so its difficult to tell. I would say SA probably have a 10 point margin looking at the sides though IMO.

SA fans always give their side a 10 point plus margin v Ireland and yet the only game in the last 8 years that was won by more than a single score was the 32-15 hammering by Ireland on SA. The last two SA won were by 2 and 4 point margins and both teams had chances to win.

Some people never learn. That said in all fairness SA have improved a lot so maybe this time for the first time SA may manage a bigger margin especially given they have named an unchanged side, they are battle hardened after the 4 nations, have had a three week training camp, they have a massive bench and Ireland are missing lots of players and have spent very little time together.

Who are these SA fans?

You do know FA is a Scottish bloke?

He lives in SA and supports SA. How long does he have to live there to be considered south african?

Anyway you know its true Billtong.

FA is tri-National in spiritual terms, I think I remember him hinting at before.

GunsGerms wrote:He lives in SA and supports SA. How long does he have to live there to be considered south african?

Anyway you know its true Billtong.

3 years according to the IRB.

SecretFly wrote:FA is tri-National in spiritual terms, I think I remember him hinting at before.

An Anglo-Scot living in SA.

To be honest I do tend to support the home nations when playing SA. I mean you try living with and amongst boere... the enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak!!!

I do catch NH rugby on tv but its not the same so my exposure is naturally very SA biased. I would say I follow SA but I don't support them. I would never sing the anthem for instance, never wear the shirt.

SA are playing well... they've just beaten NZ with lots of injuries so its a fair assumption to make that a) they're playing well and b) it will take only the best performance to beat them.

I still think 10 points is probable for me.

fa0019 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:I read that England usually receive three times their average number of penalties at home at twickenham and only 1/10th of their yellow cards. Unsurprisingly their home record is much better although their average try count is statistically indisguishable. 

Some home advantage! 

There is no other team for which this is true.

This was mentioned by one person earlier this year specifically to England. Did you ever check this for other teams or just add the .... no other team part yourself?

Its a tough comparison to make; for instance how can I use the home and away stats for Ireland when they never go to South Africa?

How can I use the stats for Wales when they always lose to SH opposition?

How can I use the stats for Scotland when they always lose ?

TobyBryant wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:I read that England usually receive three times their average number of penalties at home at twickenham and only 1/10th of their yellow cards. Unsurprisingly their home record is much better although their average try count is statistically indisguishable. 

Some home advantage! 

There is no other team for which this is true.

This was mentioned by one person earlier this year specifically to England. Did you ever check this for other teams or just add the .... no other team part yourself?

Its a tough comparison to make; for instance how can I use the home and away stats for Ireland when they never go to South Africa?

How can I use the stats for Wales when they always lose to SH opposition?

How can I use the stats for Scotland when they always lose ?

Nothing to do with losses.

Referees are not the same so it will never be the exact same scenario.

However you could at least tally up their average cards and penalties at home and away over say a 2 year period.... and then compare them to other sides.

Until you do that the comment is worthless.. why because without I don't doubt for a second that the home team tends to get the rub of the green more so than no. Its not applicable just to England, its applicable to everyone.

SA are playing well... they've just beaten NZ with lots of injuries so its a fair assumption to make that a) they're playing well and b) it will take only the best performance to beat them.
Fao are you not forgetting that NZ also had a lot of injuries both before and during the game
and only lost by the equivalent of an act of god.

True they thoroughly deserved the victory and the final kick was fantastic,and it does emphasise your point home teams do get the Refs rub of the green.

TobyBryant wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:I read that England usually receive three times their average number of penalties at home at twickenham and only 1/10th of their yellow cards. Unsurprisingly their home record is much better although their average try count is statistically indisguishable. 

Some home advantage! 

There is no other team for which this is true.

This was mentioned by one person earlier this year specifically to England. Did you ever check this for other teams or just add the .... no other team part yourself?

Its a tough comparison to make; for instance how can I use the home and away stats for Ireland when they never go to South Africa?

How can I use the stats for Wales when they always lose to SH opposition?

How can I use the stats for Scotland when they always lose ?

The stats don't require a result - all you need to do is plot the course of your argument as FA set out.  Do the Penalty and Yellow Card number diversity between home and away South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.  Does the anomaly stand?  That's all it requires.

emack2 wrote:SA are playing well... they've just beaten NZ with lots of injuries so its a fair assumption to make that a) they're playing well and b) it will take only the best performance to beat them.
Fao are you not forgetting that NZ also had a lot of injuries both before and during the game
and only lost by the equivalent of an act of god.

True they thoroughly deserved the victory and the final kick was fantastic,and it does emphasise your point home teams do get the Refs rub of the green.

As did SA

Frans Malherbe
Flip van der Merwe
Willem Alberts
Frans Louw

That's half the pack who would start had they been fit. Then you can add Fourie Du Preez onto that list too. These aren't 50/50 calls... these are sure fire first choice players out injured.

You have to expect 20% injuries at any one time for rugby these days. Any more than 3 players out granted, 3 or less you are full strength. SA had 5. To be honest I can't remember NZ's injuries.. Retallick, Crockett.... anyone else? Cruden doesn't really count given he was being punished by the NZRU? Any others?

I don't buy on field injuries myself. Happens every game, you have to be better than 1 man.

Act of God..... didn't see any lightning strikes myself on the pitch? Perhaps a sudden gust of wind courtesy of the big man pushed the ball over the sticks???

Home advantage on referees decisions... difficult to tell. Perhaps had it been on neutral ground/NZ soil the last kick wouldn't have been granted, perhaps had the RWC2011 been on neutral ground then France would be the world champions. Difficult to tell.

fa0019 wrote:

emack2 wrote:SA are playing well... they've just beaten NZ with lots of injuries so its a fair assumption to make that a) they're playing well and b) it will take only the best performance to beat them.
Fao are you not forgetting that NZ also had a lot of injuries both before and during the game
and only lost by the equivalent of an act of god.

True they thoroughly deserved the victory and the final kick was fantastic,and it does emphasise your point home teams do get the Refs rub of the green.

As did SA

Frans Malherbe
Flip van der Merwe
Willem Alberts
Frans Louw

That's half the pack who would start had they been fit. Then you can add Fourie Du Preez onto that list too. These aren't 50/50 calls... these are sure fire first choice players out injured.

You have to expect 20% injuries at any one time for rugby these days. Any more than 3 players out granted, 3 or less you are full strength. SA had 5. To be honest I can't remember NZ's injuries.. Retallick, Crockett.... anyone else? Cruden doesn't really count given he was being punished by the NZRU? Any others?

I don't buy on field injuries myself. Happens every game, you have to be better than 1 man.

Act of God..... didn't see any lightning strikes myself on the pitch? Perhaps a sudden gust of wind courtesy of the big man pushed the ball over the sticks???

Home advantage on referees decisions... difficult to tell. Perhaps had it been on neutral ground/NZ soil the last kick wouldn't have been granted, perhaps had the RWC2011 been on neutral ground then France would be the world champions. Difficult to tell.

Don't even know why you are arguing the point mate.

Ireland do try and boost their chances of beating South Africa by not playing them away from home.

Ireland haven't toured to SA since 2004. Does help give the points spread a more flattering look for Ireland.

Contrast to that England - they played 5 of the last 11 away from home against NZ in a similar time period to SA's 6 games in Dublin.

Play the best side away from home 5 times and of course you're points tally is going to hurt.

beshocked wrote: Ireland do try and boost their chances of beating South Africa by not playing them away from home.

I refer you to the point I made to Bilt.  
You too go write a letter to IRFU and SARU to find out the truth of 'Why' before you claim it to be Ireland trying to boost their chances of beating SA.  Afterall, if the trick has worked for so long on SA (and they've kept so close mouthed about it), why didn't we play the same one with the ABs and demand they played their recent 'Home' threesome with us on Irish soil???  I mean the chances are that we logically fear losing to the ABs away much more than we fear losing to SA away.  So logic gets in the way of the claim that IRFU are riding roughshod over IRB diplomacy protocalls - to gain continuous advantage on only one isolated nation.

There's a story there but write to the appropriate authorities first before deciding you have it.

beshocked wrote:Ireland do try and boost their chances of beating South Africa by not playing them away from home.

Ireland haven't toured to SA since 2004.  Does help give the points spread a more flattering look for Ireland.

Contrast to that England - they played 5 of the last 11 away from home against NZ in a similar time period to SA's 6 games in Dublin.

Play the best side away from home 5 times and of course you're points tally is going to hurt.

Yeah that's the reason for it alright

Its got nothing to do with those idiotic Lions tours getting in the way of course....

Anyhow I can jut see the guys in IRFU figuring out the future and how best to increase our chances against the Boks....lets not go there.... brilliant.

Secretfly I am just making the observation that you haven't been to SA in 10 years.

Whether it's a purposeful move by the Irish or not, it does boost Ireland's chances of beating SA.

Why don't you play SA in SA then? Can you explain it?

If England and Wales can manage to make it to SA I am sure Ireland can too.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly I am just making the observation that you haven't been to SA in 10 years.

Whether it's a purposeful move by the Irish or not, it does boost Ireland's chances of beating SA.

Why don't you play SA in SA then? Can you explain it?

If England and Wales can manage to make it to SA I am sure Ireland can too.

Nope I can't explain it but if we were trying to avoid playing any side away surely it would be NZ,S.A. are a serious side now but they haven't always been as strong and we still toured NZ instead.If I had to guess money probably had something to do with it but it would be a guess.

Also not playing S.A. doesn't increase our chances of beating them,we can't beat them unless we play them.

asoreleftshoulder you might say you're not purposely avoiding SA - fair enough I guess - but you are avoiding them away from home. Not playing in 10 years. That's a long time in rugby terms!

If you play SA on your terms (with home advantage) it raises your chances of victory.

You've never beaten SA in SA. It's obviously seen as too daunting a prospect.

Yep, we're cowards as a team and as a nation, beshocked. Next?

Not saying you are cowards but to use a boxing analogy it's like a boxer just fighting in their home country and not venturing out to fight one of the best fighters in the world on their home patch. Or a boxer not fighting one of the toughest fighters to keep their record respectable.

You can speculate whether it's cowardice, not big enough pay day etc. To be honest I don't know why Ireland are avoiding SA but they are.

I just find it interesting and strange that Ireland haven't played SA in SA since 2004.

The relevance to this thread is that it gives Ireland a very flattering points spread and record vs SA which doesn't tell the whole story.

If we don't know the reasons it could be that SA are preferring other nations visiting them for whatever reason over Ireland?

If we're not afraid to play in SA (let's face it what's the worst that can happen, get beaten? - We can do that.  We know all about it, it ain't exactly going to be a shock to the system)  So, if we're not afraid to face big sides - and we ain't - then again, you wonder - but the truth is out there somewhere.

"Play us in SA!"
"No!"
"Play us at home, we say!"
"Nope"
"Play us in our own damn country, f**k yis!!!!!"
"Níl"
"Please play us"
"Never"
"Ah go on"
"No"
"Ah go on, go on, go on, gon"
"No can do"


.............................................. does this SARU have balls, beshocked?  Would they take that crud for so long without retaliating?

We don't have enough Irish Pubs

.............anyway, three losing games against them (away) in 2016 should get the stats back to a more realistic level that won't have our neighbours complaining so much

No 7&1/2 wrote:If we don't know the reasons it could be that SA are preferring other nations visiting them for whatever reason over Ireland?

Now, there's creative thinking! Good man, Seven and a Half. Maybe SA are snubbing us rather than the other way round, and it's Ireland instead that are trying to be quietly nice about it all.

Play us in South Africa, Bilt!!! Don't be hiding. We demand a few games in the heat and beaches part of the world now!