Lambie/Morne running stats

Well here's another little surprise. We hear all the time that Lambie is the running flyhalf and Morne is a plodder. Well again, if we look at every match they played at flyhalf in this year's S15....Lambie gains 344 metres in 90 carries for a respectable 3.8 m a carry. But maligned Morne in just two more carries, 92 vs 90, outgains Lambie by a whopping 474 m to 344......for a much superior 5.15 metres per carry.

But it doesn't end here. Morne beats 12 defenders and makes 5 clean breaks. In almost exactly the same number of runs Lambie beats 7 defenders and makes 2 clean breaks. Neither set of stats is particularly impressive, but there is no doubt Steyn was the more effective runner.

Here ends the Second Myth.

This really is insignificant stats and is meaningless as pointed out before - because ball recovery from the back makes it meaningless and it does not represent any significant gains for the team in attacking rugby play - where meters gained is of value to the team.   Morne runs significantly further in ball recovery and then kicks it downfield with no real affect on the outcome of the process and that negates the value of the meters gained comprehensively.

It was pointed out to Mozart - that a player like Taute had massive meters gained stats in the games he played because he ran further until tackled by the opposing players, but Morne did not and kicked before he got tackled - with little real advantage for his team.   Show of how little meters gained is of value to the team under such circumstances.  

A stats issue of no real practical value for the team, but really good for Mozart misrepresentation.

Mozart

No theory Mozart - but a very practical illustration what happened in the case of ball recovery from the back.   Morne is a great kicker from flyhalf and since his kicks often enough are straight down the middle of the field - he falls back to recover the return kicks and then runs meters before he makes another kick. 

The number of defenders beaten is none-existent in this case - so why not mention the number of defenders beaten as an attribute in the case of Morne in all games as a whole.   Defenders beaten by Morne in the case of falling back ball recovery never happens.   He kicked before any defenders can get near to him - so none beaten in such cases. 

This is a typical case where use of stats is misleading and assigns a greater value to an element than the real value on the field of play.

Actually you silly old fool....you have just amplified my point. If as you say a number of runs Morne makes are from the back....and he beats no defenders before he kicks.....then the number of defenders beaten per run from the flyhalf  position are higher. Which makes his advantage over Lambie greater.

Thanks and game, set and match.

Mozart

It proves nothing of the sort - you really re looking for non-existent rubbish here.   He beats no defenders because there is none too beat - you silly old coot.  He kicks long before any defender gets near him.   Only you can make that into an asset about beating defenders - because of the off-side rules preventing player nearer to him advancing.   

If there is one thing Morne has no asset in rugby in - it is attacking rugby - he never threaten the advantage line ever and that is a fact of life.   That is what makes him  the most useless flyhalf i maginable.

Duplicatioin

Mozart

And woosh right into your face with you too obsessed to realise what the real position is.   

Mozart

How many more defenders - in the first 8 games I checked Lambie was better than Steyn?   Is it once in a later game?   What a sweeping statement we have here?    

So now having been totally wiped out, you go back to questioning the stats. The stats are for every game they played from the flyhalf position....not for 8 games. You really are the most stubborn fella. Did you pass matric OOM?

 Those stats are reliable they are a whole season's play. How many years do you want....they constitute 14 and 15 games at flyhalf respectively.

A better argument is that stats aren't everything, but once you are collecting data from almost 100 runs for each player....you are going to get some pretty decent indications.

Running at flyhalf is totally different to running at fullback. Flyhalf involves more power and elusiveness. Fullback is about pace and the ability to time a cut onto the ball. The fact is Lambie has looked lost running the ball at flyhalf up till the coaching change. Perhaps his new coaches can give him skills he never had before...it's possible, W ilkinson was coached into being a fair runner.

But saying there is not enough data after 100 runs is not an argument.

Mozart

What makes you think that Morne has a "clue when to run and how to release his centres".   He really is clueless and that was the fact of life last year.   This year virtually all attacking moves involved Le Roux - with Morne being static in that case.   Morne routinely stands too deep in the pocket and catch the ball standing still and then have to kick - takes time to line up kicks in such cases.  Meyer had to tell him before the Ellis Park test to stand flatter and kick less - and that mixed up the robot completely.   When he had to kick - he passed the ball, etc.

After being told clearly what the problem is with meters gained stats - the donkey brain still keep on relying on meters gained stats to prove something - but in the end it is clearly not a real factor in any form of full  backline functioning.  Dear Morne still never attacks the gain line himself - so that is the alpha and omega of the situation.  Game, set and match.

 Mozart

Crap - getting personal again - I will be sweet and tell you I did pass Maths in Matric with a B aggregate.  I do not need lessons from you about rugby evaluation either - since you are so prejudiced you really cannot judge properly.   A one incident junkie at best.

I would certainly try JW but lets see what OOM Javert comes up with....I rather fancy right now he is in his suicide mode:

I am reaching, but I fall
And the stars are black and cold
As I stare into the void
Of a world that cannot hold
I'll escape now from the world
From the world of Juan and Jean
There is nowhere I can turn
There is no way to go on

hehehe....let's have that function OOM.

 Mozart

Just love that description.  I can't stand silliness and insular thinking and particularly not one-eyed prejudice - that is the reason I come back every time.   Better that than chickening out after being proved wrong - like you do. 

It is real entertainment to read your posts - and even a greater pleasure to react to them, because they are better to react to than the silliness often enough in evidence in Saffex's posts and the cloud 9 reports of Beeno.

Cannot live without you three - it is nice to prick  your bubble and point out inconsistencies and un proven statements so often coming from the three of you.