One for the stat lovers.

[Mellsblue]

Who uses the 'I'm too busy' excuse and expects to keep their credibility (insert heavy sarcasm emoji).

Adding up scores leads to a result of who 'isn't good enough to be an international but stays fit' topping the charts. You could have a squad full of these and you wouldn't win the league. I'd certainly rather have 16 games from George Ford/Jonathon Joseph than 26 from Tom Heathcote/Harry Sloan.

As for Atkinson playing 1 game, out of position and still being a highly ranked fullback. That surely secures the award for whatever it was that I annointed him for at the start of the season.

I have credibility here?

Being in the top 30 =/= being highly ranked. I'd like to imagine common sense alone tell us that and if it didn't, Atkinson's position in the list should.

And Joseph played 9 games, scoring in none of them. He's a class act, but he hasn't been this season. It's not like Harry Sloan is even all that high.

I'm not going to pretend this thing doesn't flaws, and fair enough if you don't like it, but you're misrepresenting this quite a lot. A squad full of players like Ayerza, Brits, Parling, Smith, Waldrom, Cipriani, Rokoduguni, Wade and Good wouldn't win the league?

With Atkinson, I'm just trying to put a positive spin on one of my many shocking preseason predictions.

All I'm saying is that it highly underestimates the impact of top draw players versus military medium squad players.

Finally, I think you have some link or input to the table. Tell me I'm wrong about this as well.

[Mikey Brown]

I feel pretty sorry for Harry Sloan right now. What did he do to any of you guys? He's alright.

[Mellsblue]

I feel pretty sorry for Harry Sloan right now. What did he do to any of you guys? He's alright.

He's all that's wrong with English rugby.

[Peat]

With Atkinson, I'm just trying to put a positive spin on one of my many shocking preseason predictions.

All I'm saying is that it highly underestimates the impact of top draw players versus military medium squad players.

Finally, I think you have some link or input to the table. Tell me I'm wrong about this as well.

I'm not sure this is the case. To use the example du jour, have you considered the possibility that Joseph simply wasn't a top draw player this season?

Slade only had 13 games (4 more than Joseph, same as Sloan) and is comfortably, comfortably above both in the rankings. Tuilagi had only 7... two above Sloan. Piutau only had 3 games at centre that I can see and is only two below Sloan. It's not like a player can't get quite a way up the rankings on a handful of appearances that have good stats. Joseph didn't.

Heathcote vs Ford? They were both scoring points in the AP at roughly the same rate, with Ford a tad better. If it was the overall rating given here divided by minutes, then Ford would be ahead, but I still doubt he'd have been considered a top drawer fly-half solely on this season's form.

I'm willing to talk about other oddities, but generally if you can see a really high profile player vastly outperformed by a not so good player, there's a good chance that the high profile player underperformed this season. Not always (see Robshaw) but sometimes.


And, since you somehow missed it, the very first line I typed in this thread was it wasn't mine. I'm arguing because I enjoy arguing and you're talking bollocks with some of your comparisons.

[Which Tyler]

EG: Joseph ends up with 768 points; having played 716 minutes (total, statbunker, regardless of position); score of 1.07 per minute - or 64.4 per hour, or 85.8 per 80 minutes; or whatever.
Daly, on the other hand; has 1602 points from 1241 minutes (total... etc); score of 1.29 per minute - or 77.5 per hour, or 103.3 per 80 minutes; etc.

Tuilagi : 1111 points; 480 minutes = 185.2 per 80 minutes
Slade : 1447 points; 916 minutes = 126.4 per 80 minutes
Sloan : 1056 points; 984 minutes = 85.9 per 80 minutes

G. Ford : 831 points; 800 minutes = 83.1 per 80 minutes
Heathcote: 1697 points; 1367 minutes = 99.3 per 80 minutes

[Mellsblue]

With Atkinson, I'm just trying to put a positive spin on one of my many shocking preseason predictions.

All I'm saying is that it highly underestimates the impact of top draw players versus military medium squad players.

Finally, I think you have some link or input to the table. Tell me I'm wrong about this as well.

I'm not sure this is the case. To use the example du jour, have you considered the possibility that Joseph simply wasn't a top draw player this season?

Slade only had 13 games (4 more than Joseph, same as Sloan) and is comfortably, comfortably above both in the rankings. Tuilagi had only 7... two above Sloan. Piutau only had 3 games at centre that I can see and is only two below Sloan. It's not like a player can't get quite a way up the rankings on a handful of appearances that have good stats. Joseph didn't.

Heathcote vs Ford? They were both scoring points in the AP at roughly the same rate, with Ford a tad better. If it was the overall rating given here divided by minutes, then Ford would be ahead, but I still doubt he'd have been considered a top drawer fly-half solely on this season's form.

I'm willing to talk about other oddities, but generally if you can see a really high profile player vastly outperformed by a not so good player, there's a good chance that the high profile player underperformed this season. Not always (see Robshaw) but sometimes.


And, since you somehow missed it, the very first line I typed in this thread was it wasn't mine. I'm arguing because I enjoy arguing and you're talking bollocks with some of your comparisons.

Firstly, kudos on the Franglais. Credibility restored.

With your Joseph argument it goes back to my complaint that it's too simplistic. I remember a match in which Quins conceded a try and Sloan was out of position in the three phases immediately prior to the score. He didn't miss a tackle, so wouldn't lose a point(s), but he allowed the oppo to make three line breaks that directly led to a try. I doubt Joseph would have made these mistakes.

Heathcote v Ford are two names plucked from random to provide an international and a run of the mill domestic player. No direct comparison was involved

I did see you that you said it wasn't yours, and I can see why you wouldn't want to claim it , but then again the chap who invented Bitcoin denied it for years and that was of some use.

[Mikey Brown]

I might have to wear a 'justice for Harry Sloan' arm band tonight.

[Mellsblue]

I might have to wear a 'justice for Harry Sloan' arm band tonight.

Friday night at the swimming pool? I assumed you'd be watching/playing in the match.

[Peat]

Mells, are you calling me a liar, or having a joke?

[Which Tyler]

With your Joseph argument it goes back to my complaint that it's too simplistic. I remember a match in which Quins conceded a try and Sloan was out of position in the three phases immediately prior to the score. He didn't miss a tackle, so wouldn't lose a point(s), but he allowed the oppo to make three line breaks that directly led to a try. I doubt Joseph would have made these mistakes.

That's a problem with rugby stat.s per se; not with this particular interpretation of them. And has been pretty much doe to death over here (which isn't to say that it doesn't fully deserve to be gone over time and time again).
These guys don't seem to be gathering any data; they're just using the stats that Opta, or ESPN or whoever publish; and trying to interpret that data.

Stats don't record a player being out of position and leaving a huge hole; or the difference between failing to tackle the man in your channel versus shooting out to snuff an attack, and shepherding the FH back towards your flankers.

[Mellsblue]

Mells, are you calling me a liar, or having a joke?

I'm only joking. You just seem to be defending it quite resolutely and you've admitted before to like poring over the stats. Twas only a joke, though. I'd hoped the kudos on the Franglais and the gave that away.

[Which Tyler]

Mells, are you calling me a liar, or having a joke?

I'm only joking. You just seem to be defending it quite resolutely and you've admitted before to like poring over the stats. Twas only a joke, though. I'd hoped the kudos on the Franglais and the gave that away.

I thought it was the "bitcoins are useful" that gave it away

[Mellsblue]

With your Joseph argument it goes back to my complaint that it's too simplistic. I remember a match in which Quins conceded a try and Sloan was out of position in the three phases immediately prior to the score. He didn't miss a tackle, so wouldn't lose a point(s), but he allowed the oppo to make three line breaks that directly led to a try. I doubt Joseph would have made these mistakes.

That's a problem with rugby stat.s per se; not with this particular interpretation of them. And has been pretty much doe to death over here (which isn't to say that it doesn't fully deserve to be gone over time and time again).
These guys don't seem to be gathering any data; they're just using the stats that Opta, or ESPN or whoever publish; and trying to interpret that data.

Stats don't record a player being out of position and leaving a huge hole; or the difference between failing to tackle the man in your channel versus shooting out to snuff an attack, and shepherding the FH back towards your flankers.

Wholly agree. My problem isn't really with this system, it's just the stalking horse. It's that anything beyond the vary basics can't be qualified by stats. It's just a bugbear of mine - brought to a head from the argument that Wood was a great player because he hit huge numbers of rucks.

The two recent examples are Farrell's tacking % - poor v integral to the defensive system - and Youngs' lineout throwing % improvement - true improvement v he just throws to the front more often v he still gets the yips under pressure.

[Stom]

Who uses the 'I'm too busy' excuse and expects to keep their credibility (insert heavy sarcasm emoji).

Adding up scores leads to a result of who 'isn't good enough to be an international but stays fit' topping the charts. You could have a squad full of these and you wouldn't win the league. I'd certainly rather have 16 games from George Ford/Jonathon Joseph than 26 from Tom Heathcote/Harry Sloan.

As for Atkinson playing 1 game, out of position and still being a highly ranked fullback. That surely secures the award for whatever it was that I annointed him for at the start of the season.

I have credibility here?

Being in the top 30 =/= being highly ranked. I'd like to imagine common sense alone tell us that and if it didn't, Atkinson's position in the list should.

And Joseph played 9 games, scoring in none of them. He's a class act, but he hasn't been this season. It's not like Harry Sloan is even all that high.

I'm not going to pretend this thing doesn't flaws, and fair enough if you don't like it, but you're misrepresenting this quite a lot. A squad full of players like Ayerza, Brits, Parling, Smith, Waldrom, Cipriani, Rokoduguni, Wade and Good wouldn't win the league?

It's just that Bryce Heem is 3rd in the wing list...I think he's been pretty terrible all season, except in attack late season. I always think lowly placed teams get their players higher up than they should because their mistakes can easily be overlooked as team errors.

[Mellsblue]

Cheers for all the good banter on here, all the comments are pretty spot on. I'm happy to answer any questions and, to Mellsblue's observation that it does underrate top-flight players, point out that we have other views that take into account test and club rugby:

Top 30 European Players in each Position

So this is only players qualified to play for European countries (e.g. no George Smith) and includes RWC, 6N, Champ/Challenge Cup, AP, PRO12 and Top 14 match stats.

Oh crap, I've actually got to back-up my criticism. *runs for the hills*

[Banquo]

Dors will hate the number 8 ratings , and I doff my cap to Jack.

an England xv based purely on those ratings would be
Mako
Hayward
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
Haskell
Billy
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Daly or Barritt (if being true to position)
JJ
Wade
Brown

which is kinda interesting....obviously Slade is low down as hasn't had much rugby. Hughes doesn't appear as he isn't 'qualified' for a European country as yet.

[fivepointer]

Fun article here picking a side based on the OPTA stats.

https://samrobertsrugby.com/2016/05/10/ ... cs-aptoty/

[Stom]

Dors will hate the number 8 ratings , and I doff my cap to Jack.

an England xv based purely on those ratings would be
Mako
Hayward
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
Haskell
Billy
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Daly or Barritt (if being true to position)
JJ
Wade
Brown

which is kinda interesting....obviously Slade is low down as hasn't had much rugby. Hughes doesn't appear as he isn't 'qualified' for a European country as yet.

It does suggest extra weighting to tests is a bit much, perhaps.

[Banquo]

Dors will hate the number 8 ratings , and I doff my cap to Jack.

an England xv based purely on those ratings would be
Mako
Hayward
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
Haskell
Billy
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Daly or Barritt (if being true to position)
JJ
Wade
Brown

which is kinda interesting....obviously Slade is low down as hasn't had much rugby. Hughes doesn't appear as he isn't 'qualified' for a European country as yet.

It does suggest extra weighting to tests is a bit much, perhaps.

....and in other news, that Waldrom is better than Parisse...

It might also indicate that the cream does rise to the top. Interesting stuff nonetheless- Ford and JJ (to a lesser degree) have been given stick, yet are the top EQP's in their position across all their games (which is a little surprising I admit, though neither have been as below par as suggested for me).

[Mellsblue]

Dors will hate the number 8 ratings , and I doff my cap to Jack.

an England xv based purely on those ratings would be
Mako
Hayward
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Robshaw
Haskell
Billy
Youngs
Ford
Nowell
Daly or Barritt (if being true to position)
JJ
Wade
Brown

which is kinda interesting....obviously Slade is low down as hasn't had much rugby. Hughes doesn't appear as he isn't 'qualified' for a European country as yet.

It does suggest extra weighting to tests is a bit much, perhaps.

Ford and JJ (to a lesser degree) have been given stick, yet are the top EQP's in their position across all their games (which is a little surprising I admit, though neither have been as below par as suggested for me).

See, I've always said you can't argue with the stats.

[Banquo]

It does suggest extra weighting to tests is a bit much, perhaps.

Ford and JJ (to a lesser degree) have been given stick, yet are the top EQP's in their position across all their games (which is a little surprising I admit, though neither have been as below par as suggested for me).

See, I've always said you can't argue with the stats.

This is true, as well as always being the biggest fan of Burt,