The Tom Carter incident

[Schadenfreude]

Yes he's a decent rugby player, but his team lost against good teams, and crushed the weak.

So his stats are skewed and don't take into account the class of opposition.

Congrats TC for once again performing well against the weakest team in the competition. Let's see you do it against quality opposition.

If you think he's worth a wallaby jumper just watch the last minute of the Reds game. There's no character there, no calm under pressure, no brain.

I honestly believe the only reason people rate him is to wind other people up.

 

[drewprint]

Nah that's not fair. I reckon he's a pretty good player, hard and tough and gets the simple things right.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I often get the impression TC's Dad is on this forum.

 

[cyclopath]

Yes he's a decent rugby player, but his team lost against good teams, and crushed the weak.

So his stats are skewed and don't take into account the class of opposition.

Congrats TC for once again performing well against the weakest team in the competition. Let's see you do it against quality opposition.

If you think he's worth a wallaby jumper just watch the last minute of the Reds game. There's no character there, no calm under pressure, no brain.

I honestly believe the only reason people rate him is to wind other people up.

Seriously? That's your argument? His tackle stats covered the whole season, against all the teams, some of them, like the mighty Reds, twice. Did he hack the systems and delete all his missed tackles against them to look better? You do understand how they compile the stats for a season, it is against ALL opposition.
Using anecdotal data to argue against statistical data is pretty useless.
For example - Tom Carter missed a tackle, I saw it. The Reds won the game.
Ipso facto - Tom Carter lost them the game and can't tackle, and anything other tackles he made become redundant.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Do you seriously think tries vs the weakest teams are as valuable as wins against the strongest teams?

For the Rebels maybe - they're in a building phase, the Tahs should be looking to win the competition, and I'd suggest if they want to win they should focus on 80 minute performances against quality teams.

 

[#1 Tah]

against quality teams.

Sorry - i guess we should have tried playing the reds again. cause it was our choice who to play, y'know.

 

[cyclopath]

Firstly, I was specifically talking about tackles, where you specifically are ignoring that stat, and deciding his try-scoring data is the only discriminator.
So, to indulge you, Tapuai scored 2, and Fainga'a scored 1 in 2011.
So Carter's 6 don't count, because you deem them "weak".
That makes sense.
I guess he attempted no tackles against "strong teams", thereby only making them against weak ones, whereas all those made by Fainga'a must have been quality tackles. So those stats are skewed too.
Face it, you dislike him, and will clutch at any straw to say he is poor.
Which kind of proves the point of my original post.

 

[Gagger]

Guess the next G&GR podcast guest this monday.....

 

[suckerforred]

I'd say he didn't make it because of the "No dickhead" policy but I don't think we have one. Maybe he didn't make it because of the "no really really big dickhead policy"?

So how did we end up with Deans?

 

[Langthorne]

@ Gagger - Schadenfreude?

 

[Gagger]

On fire langers

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So how did we end up with Deans?

We thought it was Deans @ Crusaders when it was actually the cattle?

 

[spooony]

He missed 3 in the last 2 games so far. Compared to his center partner who missed 7.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The stats are really good to use because every tackle in rugby occurs in exactly the same context. Also, Carter's lightning pace allows him to get to any attacker - so please no one try to argue that stats don't tell the whole story.

The stats are not god.
However, the tackling stats give some indication of what's going on, particularly at 12.
One of the points about tackle attempts is that you have to get yourself into a position ("context") to make the attempt.
Once you put yourself into that position the tackle gets made or missed on technique, including how well the player "tracks" and what he understands about setting the ball carrier up.
These are issues for all players in defense and they present themselves apparently randomly in a game and throughout a season.
Over the course of a season therefore you probably have a pretty good sample from which to infer how much effort a player exerts in defence, how well he reads defensively, and how good his technique is.
Of course because the stats dont determine the issue you then compare them with what you see.
Over a season the issue of "context" must tend to equalise across the teams: unless one team is structurally deficient in an area and the player under analysis has had to cover for that deficiency.
I would say that as between the Reds and Tahs there is no structural deficiency defensively so the stats from each on defense should be comparable, but only in a general sense.

Some may say that QC (Quade Cooper) represents a structural defensive deficiency for the Reds, we shall have to see.

 

[suckerforred]

OK. I'm going to sound really strange for a Reds supporter.... I actually think that TC was unlucky to miss out on the RWC squad last year. I think that he is one of the most underrated players of OZ and in some siutuations last year would have been handy to have, i.e. when Genia was being monstered by ther Irish. I can see the benefits of all players mentioned above and which one fits the team best depends on the game plan that is being played. TC gets through a mountain of work and plays a bloody good TEAM game.

Now, TC might just be a bit of a wanker to those outside the game, but he obviously has the support of his teams mates, which is a very major factor. I have never met the bloke so really can't draw a valid conclusion, but like all young blokes playing footy he obviously makes some poor decisions. From all reports though they have been on the field and not off it. (QC (Quade Cooper), Cips take note.) Personally I am glad that he played well last night. Better way to get back at the knockers then giving them all the finger on TV, which he had every right to do.

Lastly, I was going to make a comment about a quote from Matt Burke, but decided that that would make me look like a hypocrite and a wanker so figure I would just shut up.

 

[suckerforred]

We thought it was Deans @ Crusaders when it was actually the cattle?

Ahh so the dickheads are the blokes who appointed him. Shit they are every where.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I did say "we" but Im prepared to shift the blame to them.
And it is relevant to this thread: you cant understand all the reasons for everything that happens on the field or, probably, in life. if something isn't working try something else - if you believe that then, much as he annoys me, TC should have played 1 test by now.

 

[spooony]

Like Carlos Spencer said who was asked who would win the Stephen Larkham/Jonny Wilkinson playmaker battle in the World Cup final

I don't give a sh*t

 

[wamberal]

Carter is a classic example of the "Peter Principle" in action.

 

[Athilnaur]

One of the things Carter impressed me with last night at the game was his leadership in the defensive line, it seems to me he plays good positional rugby, keeping his head in attack and defence. The bigger surprise to me however was how crisp and long a couple of his passes were.