Statistics, Lies and OMG WTF!!!!!!!

The official statisticians, Accenture, for the RBS 6 Nations have compiled their list of the "best" players for each position following three rounds of the 6 Nations.

From Link below wrote:They use step by step computer science to work out which players are most effective, based upon a whole range of rugby issues including line breaks, metres made, defenders beaten, successful tackles, ones which are missed, turnovers won, penalties conceded and so on.

The algorithm combines weighted values for every action - positive scores for metres gained, passes and so on, negative scores for poor handling or a missed tackle - and calculates a total points score.

Their weightings even take into account the likelihood of a point scoring opportunity being created from individual moments.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/seven-english-two-irish-just-8786542

Based on their analysis the best team at this stage woudl be:

Hogg
Williams
Joseph
Henshaw
Watson
Ford
Murray
Vunipola
Robshaw
Haskell
Biagi
Gray (J)
Cole
Ghiraldini
Dickinson


I guess that plaYing every game makes a huge difference, but even so that line-up is startling. What worries me is that we see all the coaches with their laptops out and they seem to use data like that used here to help make their decisions.

Just shows you, when a team performs as a collective it doesn't need to be the best 15 in a comp

And if the algorithm (which is based on opinion) is tweaked just a small bit you could have a totally different team.

The butthurt in the comments about 3 scots being included is hilarious. Yet no one is actually able to point out any reason why the 3 dont deserve to be there other than the fact that Scotland are bottom of the table.

Imperialbigdave wrote:The butthurt in the comments about 3 scots being included is hilarious. Yet no one is actually able to point out any reason why the 3 dont deserve to be there other than the fact that Scotland are bottom of the table.

I actually think Hogg has been the pick of the fullbacks in this tournament, but our forwards were utterly dominated by Italy in the last round so for me I would rule out Dickinson and J Gray on that basis. Both have been busy, but not hugely effective. In fact some Scotland fans have been calling for Dickinson to be dropped (wrongly in my view).

Stats can be useful tools to assess contributions, but are no substitute for actually watching the matches and assessing the true impact players are having on the game. For example Jonny Gray is a wonderful talent, but I still maintain that his brother Richie actually makes the more impactful and telling contributions to matches. The stats will tell you how many tackles a player makes/misses, but they don't tell you which of those tackles involved a player being driven back, or which of those were a try saving tap tackle. The stats will tell you how many metres a player has "made", but not distinguish between a number 8 or full back simply running the ball back, versus a line break or a drive whereby a player is making hard yards.

Stephen Jones (Sunday Times version) was making the same point a couple of weeks ago when arguing for Attwood ahead of Launchbury. I personally think he chose bad examples with which to make the point (I certainly don't see Attwood as being more influential or in fact better than Launchbury), however when judging players relative to others, you absolutely need to view those stats in the context of both the game and against the substance behind the numbers.

Imperialbigdave wrote:The butthurt in the comments about 3 scots being included is hilarious. Yet no one is actually able to point out any reason why the 3 dont deserve to be there other than the fact that Scotland are bottom of the table.

4 Scots. Biagi was born in the land of the and went to Fettes.

cp10 wrote:

Imperialbigdave wrote:The butthurt in the comments about 3 scots being included is hilarious. Yet no one is actually able to point out any reason why the 3 dont deserve to be there other than the fact that Scotland are bottom of the table.

4 Scots. Biagi was born in the land of the and went to Fettes.

No sure going to Fettes makes anyone Scottish. Mainly Chinese, Singaporean and Russian these days!!

Doesn't matter what the algorithm is, Robshaw will still top his position.

And as night follows day, a lazy journo will still demand we parachute in Armitage/Fraser/Kvesik as soon as England lose a game.

yappysnap wrote:Doesn't matter what the algorithm is, Robshaw will still top his position.

And as night follows day, a lazy journo will still demand we parachute in Armitage/Fraser/Kvesik as soon as England lose a game.

Quite right. An extremely industrious player who always gives his all. Heart on his sleeve. Very English sort of player.

I still maintain he's a 6 and not a 7, but I tend to agree with the lazy journos re: Armitage.

He'd be fine at 6 but we'd lose a bit of go forward as he doesn't carry that hard, preferring to offload pre contact or make sure he can lay it back cleanly, it would though mean we could then get a luxury player like those mentioned to help on the floor. That's a Bit more of a defensive strategy though unless we're going to maximise the turn overs into points as there would hopefully be a fair few more turnovers with two 7s in the side, might work very well with the new look backline too. I think that's a bit more like how Bath/Saints play at the moment.