Rugby stats

I'm just wondering about the websites that are used to compile match stats in rugby.

Most people on here reference espnscrum.com and recently Biltong let us know about a new site rugbystats.com.au which is slower to compile the stats but seems far more thorough

Now I've been looking at the stats for the Ireland v South Africa match on both and there are massive discrepancies in some areas,most notably metres carried by each team and individual players.

For example according to this Ireland ran 108 times for 283 metres with the ball to S.A. 65 times for 213 metres and the Jamie Heaslip had 8 runs for 10 metres.

http://www.espnscrum.com/south-africa-tour-2012/rugby/match/162815.html

Now on the rugby stats site Ireland ran 99 times for 501 metres and S.A. ran 60 times for 280 metres,Jamie Heaslip ran 10 times for 45m.

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match19514.html

Which site is right or are they both useless?

Can only be different counters covering the same matches. Must be an awful lot of work counting even one match to that level if its goes down to every ball carry/ player/ yard etc.
They must go through the film later with a huge tick sheet at slow mo.
Good question though.

Yeah,that's why I'm a bit more inclined to trust the rugbystats site.The level of detail they go into would suggest that they're more accurate.

The ESPN ones are usually done live and very unreliably, then refined and amended later.

The au site deos seem pretty good though

Obviously the big problem with cross comparison is knowing exactly what was being measured on each site. What is the criteria for deciding a missed tackle? Do we count tackle assists? etc

Since stats are only really useful for giving a broad overview anyway some vagueness and inconsistency isnt too much of a problem anyway.

Just steer clear of statbunker which has a a habit of being utter gibberish

This is worth a look at.

http://www.ruckingoodstats.com/site/home.seam

It's local, but a lot of the international media and blogs are quoting it.

What is this modern day fixation with "stats" all about?

It seems to me that most people these days can't make up their minds about the match they've just watched until they've consulted the post-match statistics.

It's as if they're saying to themselves, "Well I think Heaslip had a good game but..." - "Oh, that's a shame his stats says he was rubbish..."

Have we all given up believing in our own subjective view of a game?

Gatland quoted Wales had 73% possession in the second half last week. Looks like we overwhelmed NZ by that marker. Back on planet earth the reality is some what different.

doctornickolas wrote:Gatland quoted Wales had 73% possession in the second half last week. Looks like we overwhelmed NZ by that marker. Back on planet earth the reality is some what different.

It's not (necessarily) how long you have the ball for. What you do with it when you've got it matters too.

You have to understand the game to understand what the stats are telling you.

Unfortunately some people use them as a drunk would use a lamp post, to lean against rather than to enlighten.

67% of stats are total nonsence.

Mickado wrote:You have to understand the game to understand what the stats are telling you.

Unfortunately some people use them as a drunk would use a lamp post, to lean against rather than to enlighten.

Who could you be talking about

RuggerBoy wrote:What is this modern day fixation with "stats" all about?

It seems to me that most people these days can't make up their minds about the match they've just watched until they've consulted the post-match statistics.

It's as if they're saying to themselves, "Well I think Heaslip had a good game but..." - "Oh, that's a shame his stats says he was rubbish..."

Have we all given up believing in our own subjective view of a game?

There are a lot of strong opinions on 606v2 and very few debates/threads come to an agreed concensus.
As this is a text based medium, it is difficult / nigh-on impossible to correctly separate factual statements from witty/sarcastic banter. Often a persons own mood or preconceptions about another poster can coat any post with either brush.
When the inevitable stalemate arrives, the last bastion of safety is to throw some stats with a thinly veiled insult.

A lot of people on this site think that random stats indicates how well you know the game. (even me at times)