Wallabies Watch
- Thread starter qwerty51
- Start date
- Status
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Stats can tell you anything depends on the question asked. How many tries did the Wallabies concede in 1997?
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Then subtract the intercepts Larkham thrown to JdV and Fourie bombs
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
2008 - 3
2009 - 1.5
2010 - 3
2011 - 1.33
2012 - 1.68
McCabe - 1.8
Quade Cooper - 1.9
One issue with looking at the numbers this way is that in 2011 and 2012 we played SA/NZ/Eng far less than we had in the other years so the sample size is ridiculously small which can cause huge swings in either direction. We played them less in 2011 because of the RWC and in 2012 because of the restructuring of the Tri-Nations to include Argentina. Over the span of 2009-2012 the only major anomaly on the whole in terms of who we play would have been the Welsh series in 2012. Because of the way the test calendar is set every year the Wobs play roughly the same set of teams in every 3-4 year period. McCabe's figures to me here again represent someone towing the line of the greater team effort. It is a 15 man game after all so even if he had a freakishly low figure like .3 or something it would still require some video analysis and delving into the micro-level stats to see if he actually was the point of difference or not.
2009 - 1.5
2010 - 3
2011 - 1.33
2012 - 1.68
McCabe - 1.8
Quade Cooper - 1.9
One issue with looking at the numbers this way is that in 2011 and 2012 we played SA/NZ/Eng far less than we had in the other years so the sample size is ridiculously small which can cause huge swings in either direction. We played them less in 2011 because of the RWC and in 2012 because of the restructuring of the Tri-Nations to include Argentina. Over the span of 2009-2012 the only major anomaly on the whole in terms of who we play would have been the Welsh series in 2012. Because of the way the test calendar is set every year the Wobs play roughly the same set of teams in every 3-4 year period. McCabe's figures to me here again represent someone towing the line of the greater team effort. It is a 15 man game after all so even if he had a freakishly low figure like .3 or something it would still require some video analysis and delving into the micro-level stats to see if he actually was the point of difference or not.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
You implying something?
By looking at ~75 test matches the low percentage stuff like tries scored by intercept or kicks through get regulated for. I wasn't aware Larkham was throwing intercepts in 2008-2012?
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
How much tries did the Wallabies concede per game in 1997 according to the stats?
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
What the fuck does that have to do with the conversation at hand? 1997 was under a completely different coaching staff and with a completely different playing pool playing under what amount to completely different rules from the modern game. Seriously what the hell are you trying to get at?
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
No need to get angry mate. We are all adults and just to prove that you can't throw all your numbers in a basket then average it. The main thing statistics shows is that there is no such thing as average. If 1.xxx tries is being scored with or without him there is still 1 try being scored with or without him. Also you must remember the games at altitude which average like 8 tries a game. Even Kahui had difficulty as the Lions scored 65 against them some years back
In 2011 1 try conceded every 11.2 mins
In 2010 1 try conceded every 4.9 mins
In 2009 1 try conceded every 10.2 mins
In 2008 1 try conceded every 5.0 mins
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Yes but the thing is when you look at a sample size that includes all the test matches played over half of a decade outliers like that generally get compensated for by all of the other games being closer to the mean. I also addressed the smaller sample size that occurs when you drop to Eng/SA/NZ but that really doesn't matter so much because proportionally it nearly identically matches the numbers derived from all 75-80+ test matches.
Mate if statistics worked the way you think it does them Epidemiology wouldn't be a functional field and millions more people would die from disease outbreaks every year than already do.
Mate if statistics worked the way you think it does them Epidemiology wouldn't be a functional field and millions more people would die from disease outbreaks every year than already do.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
What?
The Wallabies let 32 tries through in 2008 over 14 tests. 14 tests x 80 minutes = 1120 minutes. 1120 minutes/32 tries = 1 try conceded every 35 minutes.
Against NZ/SA/Eng they let in 24 tries over 8 tests. 8 tests x 80 minutes = 640 minutes. 640 minutes/24 tries = 1 try conceded every 26.7 minutes.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
No problem with that but use the conceded per minutes stats rather like IRB uses. Give you a better indication. But you must remember. 2010 both games were played at altitude and 2011 SA fielded a 2nd string team for away games.
2009 had its lowest try scoring rate per match in tri nations history.
You can't use medical terms and compare it to sport. You can concede 10 tries in one game and 4 tries in your next 4. But a disease can only hit a single person.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
That was only for Tri nations.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
And they only scored 5 and 3 tries in those two games at altitude which aren't anomalous or even out of place with the other figures in that same data set.
The South African 'B-team' scored 2 more tries in Australia than the 'A-team' did in Durban in 2011.
The comparison is being made between McCabes figure and the 2010/2011/2012 figures. The 2008/2009 are there for scope but you missed the context of what we were talking about completely.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
You have missed my point entirely. McCabe doesn't have the skill set of either JdV or Kahui. He doesn't perform the roles that these two do. I would also add that the break and major challenges that McCabe made to the Crusdaers on the weekend all came on the right wing. No an accident IMO.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
And looking good too. On current form he would be second picked there behind AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). Will be surprised if he doesn't start at 13 this week for the Brumbies. Lilo has to be 12 for the Lions.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Kuridrani has been good though........
Not sure if McCabe will push him out of the XV yet.........
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
I agree with you on McCabe - http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/cooper-lealiifano-and-mogg-will-not-start-in-first-lions-test/
I still think Lealiifano is the front runner to start at 12. I'll actually be surprised this time if Deans goes back to McCabe. I think Tapuai is on the outer though. He's played himself out of a Wallabies jersey in the last month and will really need to turn things around in the next month if he wants to play against the Lions.
I agree with you that Deans isn't going to pick Cooper but I also don't think he's the obvious selection anymore. He was fairly poor against the Force and struggled to get the backline going. His stock option seemed to become throwing a dummy and taking the ball into contact. It was pretty unsuccessful. In the last few weeks he's struggled to create tries. CFS's try against the Force was pretty much a forwards try, none against the Blues and really just the Davies try against the Brumbies from attacking backline play.
Mogg has been quieter recently and had a poor game against the Crusaders. Aside from a couple of really good touch finders, he did little. Certainly the counter-attacking runs he has been known for this year were non existant and he made a couple of uncharacteristic errors. Certainly not what you want to do when the Wallabies coach is in the crowd. I think Folau and Beale are both more likely to be selected at 15 than him now. Mogg has to present an irresistable case to be selected against the Lions. He was certainly doing that at the start of the season but isn't doing so now.
I agree with you that Deans isn't going to pick Cooper but I also don't think he's the obvious selection anymore. He was fairly poor against the Force and struggled to get the backline going. His stock option seemed to become throwing a dummy and taking the ball into contact. It was pretty unsuccessful. In the last few weeks he's struggled to create tries. CFS's try against the Force was pretty much a forwards try, none against the Blues and really just the Davies try against the Brumbies from attacking backline play.
Mogg has been quieter recently and had a poor game against the Crusaders. Aside from a couple of really good touch finders, he did little. Certainly the counter-attacking runs he has been known for this year were non existant and he made a couple of uncharacteristic errors. Certainly not what you want to do when the Wallabies coach is in the crowd. I think Folau and Beale are both more likely to be selected at 15 than him now. Mogg has to present an irresistable case to be selected against the Lions. He was certainly doing that at the start of the season but isn't doing so now.
- Status