Most Effective South African Teams (Stats)

Tries:

01 .Lions (87)

07.Bulls (59)

11.Sharks (50)

15.Stormers (46)

Clean Breaks:

04.Sharks (215)

06.Lions (201)

11.Bulls (177)

12.Stormers (174)

Carries:

03.Lions (2100)

11.Stormers (1808)

12.Sharks (1799)

14.Bulls (1732)

Metres Carried:

05.Lions (7792)

11.Sharks (6899)

13.Bulls (6410)

14.Stormers (6259)

Defenders Beaten:

01.Lions (487)

08.Sharks (389)

12.Bulls (339)

13.Stormers (339)

Tackles Won%:

01.Sharks (85.2%)

06.Stormers (84.3%)

12.Lions (82.2%)

14.Bulls (81.8%)

Lineouts Won%:

01.Lions (90.6%)

02.Bulls (89.9%)

08.Sharks (87.1%)

12.Stormers (84.6%)

Offloads:

01.Sharks (203)

12.Bulls (130)

13.Stormers (126)

14.Lions (120)

Scrums Won%:

06.Lions (91%)

08.Stormers (91%)

12.Sharks (88%)

14.Bulls (86%)

Rucks Won%:

03.Lions (96%)

08.Sharks (96%)

09.Stormers (96%)

14.Bulls (94%)

Yellow Cards:

07.Bulls (7)

08.Sharks (7)

10.Stormers (7)

15.Lions (1)

Agreed. At the very least they need to rope in some defenders. There are few things worse than a basher who can be brought down for 0 metres by a solitary defender and the next phase has the defence swarm. It stalls phase play. Albert's demanded up to 3 defenders. Jean marched the defence back in the tackle, was a very secure carrier. 

That was this season, what about previous times?

Here we go, the 2017 season, just for you Draad 

Tries:

02.Lions (92)

04.Stormers (64)

09.Kings (50)

11.Cheetahs (46) 

15.Sharks (40)

16.Bulls (39)

Clean Breaks:

01.Lions (248) 

06.Stormers (183) 

09.Bulls (160)

10.Cheetahs (159)

12.Kings (145)

16.Sharks (127)

Carries:

01.Lions (2239)

05.Stormers (1895)

09.Sharks (1770)

11.Cheetahs (1742)

14.Bulls (1674)

Metres Carried:

01.Lions (10,135)

05.Stormers (7758)

10.Bulls (7074)

11.Sharks (7014)

12.Kings (6765)

Defenders Beaten:

01.Lions (485)

06.Stormers (357)

07.Sharks (345)

10.Kings (320)

11.Bulls (318)

15.Cheetahs (273)

Tackles Won%:

03.Sharks (86%)

05.Stormers (85.1%)

08.Lions (84.4%)

10.Kings (83.3%)

13.Bulls (82.8%)

16.Cheetahs (80.5%)

Lineouts Won%:

03.Lions (91.2%)

04.Bulls (91. 1%)

05.Sharks (90.9%)

07.Cheetahs (90.4%)

14.Stormers (86%)

17.Kings (84.2%)

Offloads:

04.Cheetahs (185)

06.Bulls (165)

07.Lions (161)

08.Sharks (161)

10.Stormers (147)

17.Kings (117)

Scrums Won%:

03.Stormers (94%)

08.Sharks (92%)

01.Lions (91%)

14.Kings (89%)

16.Bulls (86%)

18.Cheetahs (82%)

Rucks Won%:

01.Lions (96%)

04.Stormers (96)

11.Cheetahs (95%)

14.Sharks (95%)

15.Kings (95%)

17.Bulls (94%)

Yellow Cards :

05.Kings (11)

08.Lions (7)

10.Stormers (7)

12.Sharks (7)

14.Cheetahs (6)

18.Bulls (4)

Mozart

Defenders beaten does not equate to an average of 2,2 meters in tests and 1,8 meters per carry achieved by Alberts,   For the rest you are also blinded by prejudice and accordingly writing tripe as per normal.    

Lurker

I am amazed by your disdain about match stats when they do not Support the rubbish you write on site - yet you have no hesitation in quoting a string of stats on site.   What a Lark!!!!!!!!!!!     

I'm putting forth some info on the Super rugby series for discussion. What I am not doing is overriding video evidence in favour of numbers. You see? I have created an open platform for discussion where anybody can post information of whatever kind, thereby opening the door to learning something new. I haven't even draw a conclusion from them, but left it open to interpretation for any who find interest in doing so. Your method? Verbally bash everyone into submission with twisted "facts" that are subsequently, and easily, disproven and then fly into a tantrum because you can't control what another human being believes.

Lurker

When I mentioned the tackle stats in the quarterfinals to counteract rubbish you put on site - you tried to belittle the information by talking further crap.   So take your most deserved medi cine.    

Clever Mike. You are straining so very hard to nit pick and working your way even deeper into a hole. Comprehension skills would have avoided such a predicament. 

I have no predicament - you have.   You wrote about defense being poor in Super Rugby and when I asked what happened and gave examples in the semi's and gave examples you   said the paper figures is meaningless.    You have repeatedly said that stats are worthless and cannot be used to assess performance - when it is a fact  that over many matches stats indicate tendencies as to advantages and deficiencies of players.   So you are on dangerous ground here indiucating tha drivel is what can be expected from you.

Clever Mike, I am being very patient with you, as I have been since I signed up. If anyone is on dangerous ground, it is you. Attempting to chase members off the site and lying through your teeth repeatedly. What have I done? Try to offer some variety in material to the forum. Put something down that may offer an opportunity for discussion. You see? Not everyone uses this place as a means to belittle others and lie with the rampancy of a plague, but maybe post a little more thoughtfully about the lifespan of the forum. 

And if you are going to deduce that my posts are drivel, at least do it with the grammar and spelling of an adult. Thank you. 

None what I wrote above are lies and is entirely based on your comments under other threads.  Apparently you wrote so much BS you do not remember what you wrote/   I am really not interested in your BS and there is no indication that I have ever tried to drive members off the site - that I leave entirely to Mozart and you.            

Clever Mike, please, I implore you, refrain from any further embarrassment. I know very well what I wrote. As I say, comprehension is not your strong suit. Ende. 

Listen carefully dimness - if you do not understand what you wrote on this site I cannot help you to understand same.  

Clever Mike is getting a little hot under the collar. I explained this several posts above. Keep reading until that penny drops. Give it about an hour or two. Chin up boy'o 

Seems the Lions with their lightweight and short pack can both jump and scrum.

So much for Mostert being a lineout liability.

Meters carried, defenders beaten number of carries pretty much seals the deal.

Lol JW you think I might be Lurker.

I'll take that as a compliment but I doubt he will.

Mozart

Lurker made a wild statement that defense in Super Rugby is not acceptable and in fact a negative for the game.   I then gave him the tackle stats for 3 of the 4 semis pointing out that in the four games there was an average of 240 tackles per game.  That represents 3 successful tackles per every minute of the game.  The figure did not include missed tackles,

I then asked Lurker about the contradiction as to what he wrote and he came up with drivel to the effect that the tackles made are weak tackles and sometimes not real tackles - or something similar to that.   

Another time he stated that coaches ignore stats when it comes to player performance evaluation - since pages of tats are useless.   That is obvious BS since  stats over a series of matches  indicates a trend in player performance evaluation.

I know that your BS includes selective usage of stats so I am not surprised you support Lurker - who I reminded of his previous attitude on stats as indicated above.

In essense I do not really care about the above stats per team as it really counts for nothing.   

Lurker,

Thanks for the 2017 stats too. Very telling from the Stormer's point of view. I knew we were poor this year, but didn't realise it was so bad. Maybe because I lost a bit of interest and didn't follow rugby quite as much as in the past.

Clever Mike, why must you delight in being a bore? You have an unmatched ability to turn a non issue into a tiresome argument.

When we had our earliest debates on defence stats, I asked you questions you could not answer. I asked you questions that would determine your technical understanding of the game. I know the games we debated very well, and I knew you were talking nonsense so I challenged your rugby acumen to see how much you can actually analyze the game. It turned out that you couldn't, that the numbers you spewed were interpreted very loosely, dare I say, dishonestly. You see? Video analysis is key and something you denied was as important as a sheet full of numbers. As I correctly stated, it is an established practice throughout the sporting world to emphasize video analysis. You place emphasis on numbers because it leaves plenty of room for dishonesty. So, when all is said and done, this thread does not contradict any statement I have made in the past. My goal was to provoke discussion, not ram a view point down anyone's throat.

Now, onto your comment about defence in Super rugby, I stand by my previous statement. However, the stats above are not comparing different competitions , but teams within one competition. So, your argument is irrelevant. 

@Draad: Yes, quite a downturn. I haven't watched them for a few seasons, but the last of what I saw was a team that was very predictable. Very efficient within their patterns but very religious in how they follow them. Too lateral and too flat. No penetration amongst the backs and constant recycles to no avail. The strength was the pack, and their marauding pods. It would be interesting to see how many of the old problems persist. 

Lurker

I know that you pretend to be clever by quoting from coaching manuals - but it would help if you understand what you are quoting.      

What a deluded crowd and combined known as BSters United.   Did I write anything about today's match?   Nothing at all,  

Dishonesty and innumeracy are quite the cocktail of ineptitude. Shaken and stirred by Mozart, it becomes humorous