RugbyRebels

Itoje and Launch with big shifts. Curry a bit more human by the numbers.

Trying something new, but haven't finalised the equations etc yet, so lineouts are recorded, as are all rucks for the boks, and also tackles that didn't end up as rucks by the English. Trying to get an "Opportunities taken" number, so basically all the times the player did something, divided by the chances they had to do something (tackle, carry, ruck etc). Should allow for simpler comparison across test matches for the same position. But I need to work out the intricacies first .

You get paid for this stuff? You really should.

Nope. It's interesting to do, takes a few hours though. Hoping to wrangle it into producing some proper articles at some point, but not really now. Got some proper stattos (paid ones, though not necessarily rugby ones) who follow me on twitter and take an interest in it. Might be able to turn it into something useful at some point. Or if not, it's interesting enough anyway.

I know that Opta don't have anything but turnovers won, so perhaps I can convince them that they desperately need to employ me...

Well you can tell them Mike Brown endorses you. Or will that be misleading?

Mikey Brown wrote:Well you can tell them Mike Brown endorses you. Or will that be misleading?

Perhaps a little.

For some reason Fox Sports Rugby (the aussie broadcaster) follows me, head coach of leinster schools rugby, news editor for ITV, professional sports statisticians, head of analysis for a sports analytics company, professional rugby writers, bernard jackman (the dragons coach), Jordans international rugby coach.

It's quite fun really.

Not so much misleading as unhelpful

Mikey Brown wrote:Well you can tell them Mike Brown endorses you. Or will that be misleading?

You can add the EMB mod to that, which should add the appropriate level of weight to the endorsement. I learn more from 5 minutes on this thread than from all the "analysis" from Greenwood, Barnes, Woodward, et al on television.

Puja

Part of the reason I do it is it helps me get a better over view of the game. I'll admit this game not so much, since I added to the details I was recording, so I needed to focus on it more, was also pressed for time, so less time to go over plays.

It's interesting to see a player you thought did poorly/well actually not be as good/bad as you potentially thought. It's amazing how our thinking can be so strongly coloured by one or two instances.

I have a look every now and again on Twitter. Remember that if you make a profit.

Raggs - PM me - tried to message you but it’s playing up ...

Sent you a PM.

Actually these stats have led to me watching the game a bit differently. I'm now a little more focused around the ruck just to see who is present and what impact they are making. Sometimes in a game one or two big moments can skew your judgment on a players overall effectiveness.

I'm slowing getting better at having a wider overview of the game on first viewing I feel. Noticing players more when they're the tackler, or clearing rucks, as well the chasers (Launch put in a really solid chase late game this time, didn't manage to do anything with it, but it makes it clear he's putting in the effort).

Raggs wrote:It's interesting to see a player you thought did poorly/well actually not be as good/bad as you potentially thought. It's amazing how our thinking can be so strongly coloured by one or two instances.

That is absolutely why it's fascinating, especially since the ruck work is the very epitome of "unseen work". You're basically getting work-rate and effectiveness of work rate down as statistics and I've often found myself startled that a player that I thought was doing well actually just had a good highlights reel in my memory, or someone I thought was useless actually did quite a bit.

Mind, today's figures did not help my dislike of Nathan Hughes. They showed exactly what I thought I saw!

Puja

He had some lovely offloads but has completely lost the explosive nature he had. I wonder if it's lack of match fitness and heavy training, or if repeated leg injuries have taken it from him.

Raggs wrote:He had some lovely offloads but has completely lost the explosive nature he had. I wonder if it's lack of match fitness and heavy training, or if repeated leg injuries have taken it from him.

The problem with him is that he plays like he's the the 6ft 11 year old at school - one handed carries (although less now), always confident that he can brush off tackles, miracle offloads, looking for the glory play rather than the graft. It works for him when things are going his way, which is what makes him really annoying as he's almost as good as he thinks he is. However, if he's off colour or the opposition is good, then you get things like him trying to disdainfully brush De Klerk away without technique and instead getting humiliated by a 3 stone wet scrum-half who used good technique and put his shoulder in.

I'll forgive him a bit because he's not match fit and isn't as bad as he's looked, but he's still a liability if he's not at the top of his game.

Puja

Puja wrote:
Mind, today's figures did not help my dislike of Nathan Hughes. They showed exactly what I thought I saw!

Puja

This is what scares me about these things. That I’ll see hard evidence disproving one of my many poorly-considered opinions.

It’s the only thing that’s stopped me from putting together a similar system to assess the quality of Youngs’s passing from 9.

Is it just me or should we stick one of the Currys there? They both seem very handy when filling in.

btw, one thing I'm missing that I feel could be really useful is tackles in the final tables. We see carries, so can see when a player is excused poor attacking ruck marks, but we don't see tackles. So if a player is often the man making or assisting the tackle, his lack of defensive ruck marks may not be as bad as they look on first glance.

Tackle assist i can't help with. Tackles is from espn data. I'm working on a % figure that incorporates a lot of this stuff and spits out a figure of work done compared to work available as such. Won't help comparing position to position but should help comparing one position across a number of matches.

Free of alcohol I think I am in a good position to judge who did/didn’t have an effective game. That said that can be skewed by appointing points to each player for individual aspects of play.

I do appreciate the effort by others for breaking the game down so meticulously (even Diggers minute by minute blow) however the romance of the game comes within those 80mins and the emotions preceding it.

That said it is easy to justify a player’s overall performance, well Youngs aside, with a blinkered opinion.

But can’t help thinking that is what makes a rugby forum work.

The romance for you perhaps. Different folks different strokes.

p/d wrote: the romance of the game comes within those 80mins and the emotions preceding it.

So a little what happens in the game, and mostly how smartly dressed the coach is pre-game?

Digby wrote:

p/d wrote: the romance of the game comes within those 80mins and the emotions preceding it.

So a little what happens in the game, and mostly how smartly dressed the coach is pre-game?

The build up to a game and analysis as to whether or not Jones can carry off a baby blue zip fronted tracky top are key elements of test match rugby

Adds even more to the value Marler and Williams. Even more reason for them to start IMO.

If there's an issue with discipline is Marler really part of the answer? He's lucky to still be in the conversation, even though he is a a talented lad