Tri Nations Game 3 New Zealand v Australia - Saturday 6 August 2011 - 3N2011

[barbarian]

Yeah those ruck stats are misleading. If the opposition chooses not to compete at ruck time (which the ABs did a great deal of the time) then all the forwards who show up to secure the ball are not credited with a ruck hit as they can only stand there with menacing looks. So it's largely hit and miss. I was satisfied with the work rate of our props, even if the stats don't quite show it. We only conceded two penalties for holding on- one was wide in the backline, and the other off the back of a scrum IIRC. Add to that we were never pushed off our own ball and you can say our performance at the ruck was pretty good across the board.

 

[Richo]

And, conversely, Rocky might have hit a lot of rucks but he was clearly poor throughout the game.

 

[Athilnaur]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I assert Elsom was great because he made key tackles, threatened to score a try, did score a try, ran well for us people who are convinced they saw different dispute it. If I then say fair enough, here's some data to support my argument people say meh, stats are crap.

Nevertheless, here's a couple of points.

Elsom had the second equal (with McCabe) highest tackle attempts in our team. He missed 4 tackles (I only found 3 on my review of the tape but the guys counting are professionals, I am not and I was doing an analysis not a count), 1 of which he did well to even get close and almost certainly shut down a try by slowing Read down, and 1 which was critical (Nonu) but didn't come off. Horwill, who we all agree was great and managed at least one good turnover (I thought it was two but hes credited one), made 8 tackles and missed 4.

Elsom made more metres, doing his job, getting up the ground than even Kaino did. Made two more playmaker passes than Kaino who made precisely, 0.

Oh, and got a try by having the presence of mind to put himself there, and completely smoked Thorn.

He was still not at 100% match fitness in my view, and yet somehow he manages to hit those metrics.

Let's retire him now. Geez you guys are a hard bunch.

 

[barbarian]

I see your point Ath and that is why I think Elsom is actually pretty close to getting back to his old self. I still assert he didn't have a great game, and was outplayed by Kaino. But it hopefully will all turn around very soon, and I am not in favour of dropping him on the basis of one average performance.

 

[Scott Allen]

Some points to make on the statistics being quoted.

The stats at http://www.ruggastats.com are a summary of the data prepared by Verusco. They supply data for the Wallabies, All Blacks, Springboks and all Super Rugby franchises.

The stats at http://www.rugbystats.com.au are a summary of the data prepared by Sportsdata. They supply data for Fox and other media organisations.

They are professional providers of data and employ teams of people to code games. I've seen the detailed data Verusco provide which is absolutely amazing in the detail. To code these games they give a bunch of people a few minutes each to code and RuckingGoodStats says they take 40 hours to code each game.

Even with this much time spent on a game you are going to get differences in what is recorded.

For example the stats showing Kepu hit only 4 rucks/mauls are those provided by RugbyStats as noted by Athilnaur. Those same stats show Elsom only hitting 10 rucks/mauls. The stats provided by RuggaStats show Kepu hit 7 breakdowns in defence and 22 in attack for a total of 29 whilst Elsom hit 9 breakdowns in defence and 19 in attack for a total of 28.

I also code the games and I recorded Kepu hitting 4 breakdowns in defence and 23 in attack for a total of 27 whilst I recorded Elsom hitting 12 breakdowns in defence and 18 in attack for a total of 30.

It seems therefore that the ruck/maul stats published by Sportsdata are probably only for defensive rucks and mauls. I don’t know why you’d ignore attacking rucks and mauls but that seems to be the only way to explain such a large discrepancy.

The difference continues with tackles. Again I’ll use Kepu and Elsom as the examples. Verusco have Kepu making 5 tackles and missing 0, Sportsdata have Kepu making 6 tackles and missing 0. I have Kepu making 6 tackles and missing 0. For Elsom Verusco have him making 11 and missing 4, Sportsdata have him making 9 and missing 6 and I have him making 10 and missing 4.

Why the differences? Could be some mistakes but is more than likely to be differences in interpretation. For example, do you record a missed tackle if the player comes across in cover, tackles the ball carrier and the ball carrier stumbles on for a couple of metres before falling to the ground and another player jumps on him to complete the tackle but the tackler fell off him once he’d made contact? On one hand he was the player that got him to ground but on the other hand he let go and the player made a couple of extra metres and could have got up and gone again but for the other player. I couldn’t tell you what I would code that as without seeing the tackle but two different people could code that differently. When you take into account that the professional suppliers use multiple people to code part of the same game, there could also be different interpretations within their own staff.

I know RuckingGoodStats also codes the game but measures different things.

Anyone know of any other published statistics that are not drawing data from the sources listed here?

You can see my statistics from last weekends game at http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/austins-tn3-match-review-and-statistics/

 

[Athilnaur]

Thanks Scotty, I inferred that Rugga Stats was sourcing their data from Verusco due to the ads, but it isn't actually stated. I know from a recent (post?) RGS mentioned each coder would be given ten minutes of the game to dissect. That alone was enough to tell me they don't screw around. Your data is another level again and I had set it aside for a rainy day! Love the dominant tackle count btw. That adds a qualitative dimension I think.

If I had to make one observation about stats it would be to see them as a blunt instrument. Give you the broad dimensions of whats going on, but very limited. I like them because they help reduce bias. We all have it. Even more so when it is something you are passionate about.

 

[Bullrush]

haka.co.nz for All Black stats....unfortunately they don't do the opposition - just the ABs

 

[Scott Allen]

Agree on what stats are useful for - as I say in most of my articles using statistics I use them prinarily to identify issues that are outside of the norm or show a trend developing.

If for example, the tackle accuracy rate of a team or a player is a lot lower than normal, I look further into why that is so but if the tackle accuracy is fairly close to average it's not something I spend much time on.

As most stats are quantitative you always need to look beyond the numbers. For example you can win 100% of your scrum feeds in a game but your scrum may have gone backwards each time providing terrible ball for the halfback who couldn't make a single pass to your #10 to initiate a first phase play.

Even qualitative stats are difficult to get the true picture from because they rely on someone making a judgement call as to what was quality and what was not. In the scrum example if the statistics were expanded to measure good ball / average ball / poor ball, someone still has to make a judgement call which category each instance falls into.

Where stats are really useful is in identifying trends over a number of matches or from season to season.

In the example above if 50% of ball from a scrum was recorded as poor over 2 or 3 matches, you'd start looking closer to find out what was going on.

 

[Scott Allen]

Thanks Bullrush - I have seen them too.

 

[Athilnaur]

Haka.co.nz/Tracey Nelson is interesting, her format is similar to Rugga stats, but the counts are slightly different, so clearly not the same person. For example Read in run metres; Haka says 8 carries for 61, Rugga says 10 for 62. Also noticed the 1st to breakdown count she uses seems to be 1st 3 to cleanouts only, not counter rucks.

PS a conspiracy theorist could have a lot of fun speculating why a company based in one country might skew data released to media outlets

 

[What2040]

IMO stats should be whatever the ARU looks at - then at least we could have some consistency in comments made - as said by someone they seem to vary greatly between the stat takers

 

[Gagger]

haka.co.nz for All Black stats....unfortunately they don't do the opposition - just the ABs

typically one eyed.....

 

[Slim 293]

To be honest I thought he was more involved than 2 as well and Kepu more than 4 - point is that they weren't involved enough - if 2 of tight 5 (and add in Simmons so 3 of 5) aren't doing the hard work all game then its very difficult to win or be competitive at the breakdown.

But when you go back and watch the game you'll see that both our props got around the park and did a lot of work...

They might not have counted towards the stats but Alexander put two very aggressive clearouts on AB players loitering near the ruck which I was glad to see...

Too often we allow them to loiter offside and interfere with our attackers/defenders, and it's the kind of aggression I'd like to see from some of our backrowers...

For mine, the front row were the standouts of the Wallabies... they were the few that could come out of the game knowing they did their job and did it pretty well...

 

[liquor box]

But when you go back and watch the game you'll see that both our props got around the park and did a lot of work...

They might not have counted towards the stats but Alexander put two very aggressive clearouts on AB players loitering near the ruck which I was glad to see...

Too often we allow them to loiter offside and interfere with our attackers/defenders, and it's the kind of aggression I'd like to see from some of our backrowers...

For mine, the front row were the standouts of the Wallabies... they were the few that could come out of the game knowing they did their job and did it pretty well...

I think I recall Robbie Deans saying he often judges by what is happening away from the ruck and often focuses off the ruck when reviewing a game.

 

[Athilnaur]

For me I think everyone is so focused on identifying problem spots we are missing the point.

Our teamwork blew, in defense and attack. The ABs played like a team.

We played dumb. They stuck to a plan.

They won.



Are they more talented than us? I sincerely don't think they are. But they are experienced, and they know how to win. Our team has it in them to be great, I really believe it. But by god I hope they all front up this Sat with a pact to play like a team of blood brothers. Or Boks are gonna make them hurt.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

haka.co.nz for All Black stats....unfortunately they don't do the opposition - just the ABs

Maybe that is why the Kiwis have not won a WC since 1987; they have no stats on the opposition.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Maybe that is why the Kiwis have not won a WC since 1987; they have no stats on the opposition.

??????

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Maybe that is why the Kiwis have not won a WC since 1987; they have no stats on the opposition.

Classic stuff VFR! Pretty original one, I don't think I've read you post something like this before!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Are they more talented than us? I sincerely don't think they are. But they are experienced, and they know how to win. Our team has it in them to be great, I really believe it. But by god I hope they all front up this Sat with a pact to play like a team of blood brothers. Or Boks are gonna make them hurt.

Yep, big big test this weekend. I think we'll find out a lot about the mental strength of the team in Durban. If they can win over there against a Bok team with plenty to prove, we'll know they've at least got some ticker. It has to be no guts no glory and just go out and take the game on. The boys looked shellshocked at times on Saturday and they need to get it into their heads that collectively they are good enough to beat any team. I honestly believe they are. They've beaten all the other big teams at least once in the last couple of years, so we know they can do it.

It will require them to be smart too. Laser like focus and precision is what is needed.

 

[Riptide]

Yep, big big test this weekend. I think we'll find out a lot about the mental strength of the team in Durban. If they can win over there against a Bok team with plenty to prove, we'll know they've at least got some ticker. It has to be no guts no glory and just go out and take the game on. The boys looked shellshocked at times on Saturday and they need to get it into their heads that collectively they are good enough to beat any team. I honestly believe they are. They've beaten all the other big teams at least once in the last couple of years, so we know they can do it.

It will require them to be smart too. Laser like focus and precision is what is needed.

I honestly don't think the Boks are expecting much for the first game back in a long time. There is no way they can really fire on all cylinders even with their conservative approach with so little game time in over 6 weeks (the B team is now done), and so a Wallaby win tells us very little. Even PdV 'thinks' the Boks might struggle a bit to find their game usually talks up. I expect the Boks are really gearing up to take on NZ the following week.

The Wallabies had their big test last week and blew it; they weren't good enough. A victory this weekend is to be expected. If they front up and lose against this Bok team after all the talk and prep, then the squad is in trouble.