My Wallaby 22

[Lee Grant]

Re: My Wallaby 22

You've got to give it to Robbie Deans, an entire thread on here devoted to picking the Wallaby bolters and nobody picks Pek Cowan. Pek is there more for his potential I suppose. Could well deliver in the future, we'll wait and see.

I claim half a point headmaster.

PK Cowan is starting to sniff around. Were it not for unaccustomed depth in this position, he would be a smokey.

I don't think anybody expected 3 LHPs to be chosen and just one THP; so that's why Pek didn't get much of a mention. He's in the squad for his potential as you say steiner.

If Kepu can play for Randwick tomorrow (he's bracketed to play LHP with somebody else) and regularly thereafter, to get a bit of match fitness back, I bet he gets called in for a bench spot if Robinson or Alexander are injured - ahead of Pek.

 

[steiner]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Ah, missed that one. I think you might have mentioned Hodgson as well. So that's both of the super-bolters!
Well a half-point for each one anyway..... better than the rest of us.

Well done Lee.

 

[Ash]

Re: My Wallaby 22

One set of stats:

http://www.sarugby.com/news/Stats_Centre_2009.html

Posted at TSF, can't remember who now sorry. Thank him anyway.

The same (NZ, I think) company who does stats for that site does stats for a quite a few places, and the stats look different elsewhere. Unfortunately, the stats on that site aren't always useful or clear - like where's a clear turnover stat?

Tables are painful, but I haven't done one in so long, so here goes.



NameAssistsClean breaksDef. beatenInnef. PassesKicks in playLineouts (oppn.)Lineouts (own)MetresMinutes playedMissed tacklesOffloadsPassesPens (defence)Pens (offence)RunsTackles madeTries scoredT/Os concededYellow cards


Smith377191111 6651030191711844 1161700131


Waugh0118626 314101325118692 59154160



edit: removed some irrelevant stats. Generally, Smith's stats are better than Waugh's. But the innefective passes and kicks in play show how Smith thinks of himself as more of a playmaker than Waugh, for better or worse.

 

[Ash]

Re: My Wallaby 22

The other way to get some stats is to sign up to a fantasy rugby league and create a junk team (which I did at the Fox Sports one). Can't be bothered to log in to get the stats from that, though.

 

[fatprop]

Re: My Wallaby 22

This one is pretty detailed

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/?refresh=1242610130248

 

[Lee Grant]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Thanks for that FP.

Interestiing

 

[Langthorne]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Thanks for those statistics links. Very interesting indeed.

I love the table too!


Before going into the details, and how they might relate to my comments regarding George Smith, I think I'll add a good few pinches of salt:

Similar areas of comparison do not give the same results

Different sites measure different attributes

It is not entirely clear what each measure includes

There are loads of things that the stats don't attempt to measure and loads that they can't

Even with the raw data, there still needs to be some interpretation




Having said all of that, I'm going to go out on a limb (not like me, I know) and give my take on what I'm seeing as regards Smith vs Waugh:


Gaining and retaining possession:

Waugh edges Smith on pilfers (14-12)

Waugh was at least twice as effective in the lineout (though the exact figures on each site are different, the percentages are about the same)

Smith turned over at least twice as much possession (Turnovers conceeded 13-6, Ineffective passes 19-8)


Defence:

There is disagreement between the sites as to which is the more effective tackler. Both record that Smith makes about 1 more tackle per game than Waugh, but the number and percentage of missed tackles does not match up at all. Although I believe Waugh to be the better defender, these statistics viewed together are inconclusive. I will say that in terms of defence, both Smith and Waugh are well and truely up to the job.

Penalties etc:

I believed that Smith gave away more penalties than Waugh, but the one site that gives stats for penalties puts Waugh ahead (11-8). Interestingly, 9 from 11 of Waugh's penalties were defensive (better to give them 3 than 7?), whilst Smith's were 4 and 4. Smith was ahead on yellow cards (1-0), but that hardly puts him into the Bakkies Botha class.

Based on those measures, I still believe Waugh is better than Smith when it comes to the fundamental (and most important) aspects of a number 7.


BUT, there are the areas of running, kicking and passing the ball yet to be considered:


The sites are in agreement on who is in front, but not on degree.

I think it is fair to say that Smith runs, kicks and passes the ball at least twice as much as Waugh. I think it is also fair to say that his kicks and runs gain about twice as much territory as Waugh's. In terms of passing, Waugh made less passes (86-118), but proportionally less were ineffective (8-19 which is about 9% to 16%).

If, as I suggest, a large proportion of Smith's runs, kicks and passes were made in the centres (no stats available for this I'm afraid), then a cursory glance at the relevant stats for players selected in those positions will reveal that Smith is half as effective as the average kicker and ball runner (and even further behind the best).


Should Smith's superior running and kicking put him ahead of Waugh's superior ball retention and passing?

I think not,

especially as I suspect that much of Smith's kicking should be recorded as 'ineffective', and that having Smith making the runs, kicks and passes means that a more effective runner, kicker or passer is not being utilised.


If George went back to his old game, I would have a different attitude.

 

[Spook]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Sorry but I think that's a poor analysis - you've not even considered that the Brumbies were playing a very different type of game to the Tahs which was based around offloading in attack. You've also not even mentioned the linking role an openside flanker plays between forwards and backs. Thus you don't really understand the fundamentals of a number 7. Waugh is nowhere near Smith in terms of being a link man and Waugh lacks pace. Smith is more effective in broken play, preserving continuity and supporting the backs.

I find it amazing that you think Waugh has a better passing game than Smith. :-\ Smith has exceptional skills.

Smith was all over Waugh when he played against him this year. The Wallabies are far more potent with Smith at 7. In fact, I don't think Oz has won a game against the Blacks when Waugh was at 7 and Smith wasn't in the starting 15.

Some other stats:

Turn overs forced - Smith 7
Turn overs forced - Waugh 4

Tackles bust - Smith 14
Tackles bust - Waugh 3

The S14 fantasy stats show that Waugh didn't win any lineouts and that Smith won 1 and 2 of the oppositions - but I don't trust these and they are irrelevant anyway. The Brumbies didn't use Smith in the lineouts from memory.

Waugh is a very good player and a real war horse but Smith is a match winner. Why do we keep having this debate by the way? :nta:???

 

[Pfitzy]

Re: My Wallaby 22

The fact that either of them have anything but a donut in "Kicks In Play" means we should pick Pocock...

 

[Langthorne]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Sorry but I think that's a poor analysis - you've not even considered that the Brumbies were playing a very different type of game to the Tahs which was based around offloading in attack. You've also not even mentioned the linking role an openside flanker plays between forwards and backs. Thus you don't really understand the fundamentals of a number 7. Waugh is nowhere near Smith in terms of being a link man and Waugh lacks pace. Smith is more effective in broken play, preserving continuity and supporting the backs.

I find it amazing that you think Waugh has a better passing game than Smith. :-\ Smith has exceptional skills.

Smith was all over Waugh when he played against him this year. The Wallabies are far more potent with Smith at 7. In fact, I don't think Oz has won a game against the Blacks when Waugh was at 7 and Smith wasn't in the starting 15.

Some other stats:

Turn overs forced - Smith 7
Turn overs forced - Waugh 4

Tackles bust - Smith 14
Tackles bust - Waugh 3

The S14 fantasy stats show that Waugh didn't win any lineouts and that Smith won 1 and 2 of the oppositions - but I don't trust these and they are irrelevant anyway. The Brumbies didn't use Smith in the lineouts from memory.

Waugh is a very good player and a real war horse but Smith is a match winner. Why do we keep having this debate by the way? :nta:???

I did not make any of the figures up, and the websites consulted were recommended by others within in this thread.

I am sorry, but I did not include the S14 FANTASY stats.

Just so that we are clear - do you think the Fantasy stats are accurate or not? What about the other stats?

I am happy if someone wants to reject the stats as a somewhat accurate measure.
I am happy if someone wants to interpret the stats in some way.

But if you want to call on these stats as evidence then picking and choosing is a bit ingenuous.

ie "If the stats say Smith is the best, then they must be accurate. If Waugh is ahead in any area then the stats must be wrong"

By the way, for the record, (having had a cursory look) it appears that according to the Fantasy stats:

Waugh is better on pilfers, tackle completion and long arm penalties

Smith is better on off loads, tackles bust and turn over forced (and line out takes - Waugh is listed as having none, which anyone who saw only the game against the Lions will know is not accurate)

Of course David Pocock has more points than either of them, so maybe he should be the Wallaby number 7.


On the Smith passing game. I too think he is a more skilled passer of the ball than Waugh.
He is also a better kicker.
He is also a better ball runner.
There is only a problem (to my mind) because Smith overestimates his passing, kicking and running ability and attempts things beyond him - things I would prefer left to the players who have the requisite skills at the requisite level.

I didn't see any stats for rucks and mauls won, or % of rucks and mauls won, or number of rucks and mauls in the match with a percentage involvement. Like I said, there are many aspects not covered by the stats.

At what point does 'being the link man' become 'getting in the way' or 'standing out in the centres'? Do you bring up the linking play aspect because you believe it is more important than the areas I specified? Or is it just an attempt to discredit what I am saying without addressing the points raised? Either is fine by me.

I've been referring exclusively to this season (we're not picking a team based on past glories or else there are a few retired guys I'd bring in), but I am interested to know:

Are you saying that the games lost to the All Blacks with Waugh playing and Smith not playing are down to Waugh?
Are you also saying it is Smith's fault when he was playing (without Waugh) and the Wallabies lost to the All Blacks?

I too was shocked and appalled that Waugh made even one kick in play - but I suspect they were made when there was no other option (only sheer desperation could drive him to kick - surely?). I'm pretty sure there must be a couple of those "let's get get this game finished by kicking it out" kicks too.

 

[disco]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Thanks Fatprop,
I'm actually a bit of a stats fan so I enjoy reading that sought of stuff, favourite stat was the tackle average made & missed with David Pocock miles in front of everyone with 16.5 tackles made to only 0.5 missed.

That is freakish stuff.

 

[Spook]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Just so that we are clear - do you think the Fantasy stats are accurate or not? What about the other stats?

I'm not in a position to judge whether the stats are accurate from any site and I daresay neither are you. The only large mismatch in the stats I could see presented was around lineouts which I don't believe are relevant to this conversation. I regard the lineout data as a form of outlier.

Do you really think Waugh or Smith are being selected for their lineout skills? :nta: Let's exercise a bit of common sense here.

I am happy if someone wants to reject the stats as a somewhat accurate measure.
I am happy if someone wants to interpret the stats in some way.

But if you want to call on these stats as evidence then picking and choosing is a bit ingenuous.

ie "If the stats say Smith is the best, then they must be accurate. If Waugh is ahead in any area then the stats must be wrong"

I presented more data which is relevant to this thread. There is no picking and choosing going on but I think the more relevant data the better right?

I don't deny any of the data but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the data.

By the way, for the record, (having had a cursory look) it appears that according to the Fantasy stats:

Waugh is better on pilfers, tackle completion and long arm penalties

Smith is better on off loads, tackles bust and turn over forced (and line out takes - Waugh is listed as having none, which anyone who saw only the game against the Lions will know is not accurate)

Tackle completion is very close but Smith made more tackles and overall gave away less penalties (short and long). Now if we were playing under the Global ELVs, those short arms would be long. To be honest, both players are great in defense and the defensive/penalty stats are close.

On the Smith passing game. I too think he is a more skilled passer of the ball than Waugh.
He is also a better kicker.
He is also a better ball runner.

This is where things get interesting when looking at the stats. Smith made 104 runs compared with Waugh's 55. This is a massive difference that should be highlighted given the defense stats are pretty close.

At what point does 'being the link man' become 'getting in the way' or 'standing out in the centres'? Do you bring up the linking play aspect because you believe it is more important than the areas I specified? Or is it just an attempt to discredit what I am saying without addressing the points raised? Either is fine by me.

You said previously:

If, as I suggest, a large proportion of Smith's runs, kicks and passes were made in the centres (no stats available for this I'm afraid), then a cursory glance at the relevant stats for players selected in those positions will reveal that Smith is half as effective as the average kicker and ball runner (and even further behind the best).

As you say, no stats available so why invent this "standing out in the centres" nonsense? You discredit Smiths running by comparing him with outside backs who do bugger all grunt work - that's utterly ridiculous. We are comparing two opensides here so don't try and muddy the water. Furthermore, I would argue that Smith does most of his running one pass from the ruck into very heavy traffic. However, all we can glean from the stats is that Smith makes nearly twice as many runs, makes more metres and busts a lot more tackles. If you add this to his defensive effort, Smith has a higher workrate than Waugh.

At what point does 'being the link man' become 'getting in the way'

Openside flankers support their backs in attack. It's fundemantal part of being an openside and one that you don't seem consider important.

Are you saying that the games lost to the All Blacks with Waugh playing and Smith not playing are down to Waugh?
Are you also saying it is Smith's fault when he was playing (without Waugh) and the Wallabies lost to the All Blacks?

I have stated that there is a correlation between Smith being in the starting XV, Waugh not starting, and Australia beating the All Blacks. On the flip side, there is also a correlation between Waugh starting in the XV, Smith not starting and Australia losing. Make of this what you will.

 

[Spook]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Thanks Fatprop,
I'm actually a bit of a stats fan so I enjoy reading that sought of stuff, favourite stat was the tackle average made & missed with David Pocock miles in front of everyone with 16.5 tackles made to only 0.5 missed.

That is freakish stuff.

Pocock is going to be one of the greats. I've never seen a bloke so physically tough/developed at his age.

 

[Spook]

Re: My Wallaby 22

Ashley-Cooper: which test was the one where he kept dropping the high ball? maybe I'm just remembering multiple tests. I'm not saying he is useless, just not in the top 30.

You are right, he is a crap fullback. I'm hoping he will be used in the centres or on the wing where he could excel.

I have heard it said he is a great centre. Did he play there at all this S14 season? I seem to recall he played there a bit in the last World Cup - but I also seem to recall I was not impressed (though he wasn't alone).

Playing on the wing, especially the way the Wallabies have been playing (maybe I should start a new thread on that one), requires many of the same skills as playing fullback.

In his defence, he had a few very good games at the end of the S14 season (well the end for the Aussie sides anyway). Just for me not good enough for the Wallabies.

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had an excellent game against France at 13 and the Barbarians where he was at 12. He played exceptionally well at 15 against the Chiefs. I don't think he's a good fullback but has been excellent on the wing for Australia scoring quite a few tries against the All Blacks. I'd have him over Tuquiri any day.

 

[Langthorne]

Re: My Wallaby 22

If it was a choice between Ashley-Cooper and Tiqiri I think Ashley-Cooper would just shade it for me too - but the choices are (fortunately) not so bleak.


(Probably) the last I'll say on the Smith/Waugh issue:

I always (from the beginning) made it clear that my impression of much of Smith's play this season was that he spent too much time in the backs. Some will call it link play (but for other forwards it is labled as sea gulling), but my impression is that it was often just getting in the way. The only statistics I could draw on in evidence indicated that he certainly made more runs, kicks and passes than Waugh (though the degree is in dispute). Smith's runs were twice as effective, but his passing was less effective (according to the available stats). The effectiveness of kicks was not mentioned, only the distance, but I defy anyone to defend Smith's kicking.

If Smith was ahead in all other areas, I would pick him first and tell him to cut out the seagulling and kicking - but he is not ahead in all other areas (even if we out the lineout aside - interestingly, if Smith was nit in the lineouts I guess he was where?).

So from my perspective he is slightly behind on the tangibles that I consider fundamental to his position, but he gets extra demerits for his kicking, passing and running when (if done to that degree, in the positions I believe he is occupying) they would be better done by someone else (and not withstanding the fact that the stats say he kicks and runs more effectively than Waugh).

I can also see now that it is not just a question of comparing skill sets - it is a question of how they are deployed, and whether that is appropriate to the number 7 position. I prefer the way Waugh plays at number 7 but others prefer they way Smith does it. If I favoured a number 7 who played in Smith's style, then I guess I would go with Smith.

I am not saying Smith is crap, and not many people here are saying Waugh is crap. But I'm starting to think that although we might not be comparing apples and oranges - it could well be oranges and lemons.



(before anyone says it - no, Waugh is not the lemon!)