17 Mar 2014, 19:26#2
Mike - looks like the rankings are according to total points. Lions and Cheetahs players have played an extra game thus earning a distinct advantage. A more accurate ranking would be points per game. I think you'll find the rankings change significantly overall and relative to each other.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Mar 2014, 20:47#4
oimatey
I realise that as well - but in most cases the point difference are substantial - so the extra game will not make all that much of a difference. I will in future update the situation after each round. The Cheetahs have one more game before they have a bye - so we will see what the position is after Round 7.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Mar 2014, 20:54#5
Mozart
Those points are based on the norms similar to ESPNscrum - it merely couples points to each activity. So garbage in means players who performs are in - garbage out means the players you support - whose performances are sub-standard are out..
Thanks for the explanation - I immediately got the message and applies it to the disappointing players in our teams.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Mar 2014, 21:40#6
So it's no more than a weighted average of individual stats, which take no account of degree of difficulty, criticality, opposition etc etc. That explains why process players like the pudding Lappies get high scores.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Mar 2014, 23:21#7
Mopzart
Why don't you stop making a absolute fool of yourself by using the word "process". Let me explain tackling can be rated as a "process" - so all players participate in the same process - that of tackling - so if you want to use the term it applies to ALL players - not some of them.
Let me add there are effective tackles and less effective tackles. The effective ones are those where players are tackled back or where the tackle directly resulted in losing of possession by the opposing team. Even there there are variations - a bog ordinary tackle can result in possession loss through neglect of the opposition team to take normal action to retain the ball. There is no player amongst the SA loosies who have not tackled back an opposing player - so has Willem Alberts - but his tackle count is so low compared to the other players that is tackling back of players are even less likely than the other loosies. . However, you use the word as an invention to discredit some players because they comprehensively outplay your favourite players. Please stop - you are foolish to think that usage of the word has any meaning as a means to devalue player performances in rugby so as to benefit other less-competitive players. .
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
18 Mar 2014, 12:24#8
Does the stat for tackling show the weight and height of the opposition, their position, their angle of run, were they part of a set play? Was the tackle high, low, front or side on? The stats don't really seem to tell very much at all. It's like meters gained, most of those for alot of players are lateral. Statistics need to be scrutinized and until given some context are utterly WORTHLESS.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 Mar 2014, 13:50#9
Dim Sun
Stats for a specific match are not a reliable indicator of performance - however, over a series or part of a series stats indicate -
* whether a player can be relied on to make tackles or whether he has a tendency to miss tackles;
* whether a player's tackle count is low or in line with what is expected from a player in a specific position;
* whether a player has a tendency to lose possession of balls and give away penalties;
* whether a backline player especially and also a back row player is capable of beating defenders and/or making line breaks;etc
Stats are only meaningless if players individual members of this site fails continually on the field of play - supported by statistical evidence - fail to deliver the goods. Then all kinds of weird excuses are found for missed tackles and to explain away deficiencies of players.
The final analysis remains what a player delivers on the field of play - not the verbal gyrations that members like yourself makes to explain away player failures. In that group you can include players like the Steyns and lazy fat Alberts - who for a change did about 40% of the work expected from a loosie in the game against the Reds. Add useless de Jongh to that lot and you have the picture.
sharkbok
Captain23,297 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,297 posts
18 Mar 2014, 22:38#11
Goosen is not performing like he did in 2012, but I suppose it would be easily to be mentally pressured given the severe injuries he has had.
Although I do think he is getting better with each game.
Also his pack have not really given him great ball.
They just cant get the ball through multiple phases, and the turn overs are messing up the attacking games
