Mozart is often accused of being writing biased and inaccurate assessments of player performances. Being in a generous mood I want to defend him against unjust accusations and provbide some advice that perhaps could assist him n assessments and in player evaluations comparative to each other.
Lets take a few practical examples:-
Scruming
It is not always easy to see which player(s) is responsible for collapsing of scrumming - poppring up, etc. The general guideline most spectators follow is to follow what the refs ruling is. He ould have the scrum reset - award short arm penalties and in desperation also long arm penalties.
What can goo wrong:-
* Unbinding by players;* taking scrums down under pressure* not scrummin straight* going on walk-aroiunds
The latter spcifically is a problem for the public - they see the scrum going backwards at pace and the referee penalizing the side gapparently going forward.
There is not a single prop in the world that has not at times contravened scrumming rules and got penalized, carded, etc for contraventions. To accuse one player of contravention and excuse others without proper analysis.
If it happens repeatedly in a match that the above happened in the case of a player - make a mental note to see if that tendency is repeated in subsequent matches - in othr words - try an determine whether the player has a tendency to fail in the relevant regard. Also note the circumstances around the contraventions. If for instance a player is carded and the scrum thus weakened - take that in consideration.
If there are comparisons made with other players - go through the procsss on the same basis with the other player concerned,
ABOVE ALL MAKE SURE THAT IN ALL CASES A TENDENCY IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE CRITICIZING A PLAYER FOR INCOMPETENCE.
Defense
Spectators have as number of general problems in viewing games here as well:-
* Players occasionally makes a strong tackle and even one such tackle in a match or a series of matches - give the tackler a reputation of being a strong tackler - even if the rest of his tackles are average or even weak.
* Players make a high number of tackles in one game - but that is not the case in a series of games.
* Players miss tackles in one game and it results in problems for the team in that game.
* Tackle quality - is it strong (mostly resulting in ball possession losses, turnovers and penalties); is it average and effective, or is it weak tackling.
If it happens repeatedly in a match that the above happened in the case of a player - make a mental note to see if that tendency is repeated in subsequent matches - in other words - try an determine whether the player has a tendency to excel or fail in the relevant regard. Also note the circumstances around the contraventions. If for instance a player has a tendency to make ineffective tackles, miss tackles or is penalized regularly for illegal tackles - go through the process and make sure the tendency you believe has been established is the correct one..
If there are comparisons made with other players - go through the procsss on the same basis with the other player concerned,
ABOVE ALL MAKE SURE THAT IN ALL CASES A TENDENCY IS ESTABLISHED BEFORE CRITICIZING A PLAYER FOR INCOMPETENCE.
One Incident Assessments
One of the worst form off assessment is to use one incident in a match and then build a player performance profile based on that incident. This is the most inaccurate of all assessments possible. A player make one mistake - amd suddenly that mistake becomes career-defining.
Don't forget about that incident and see whether that incident error is repeated and the player has the tendency to repeat that mistake in the same match or over a series of matches. Again the tendency is to determine a performance tendency in the relevant regard.
Wide statements without substance
This is a norm beloved by journalists - they see one incident in a match and suddenly go for the jugular or praise a player - without regard to the rest of his performances in a match or over a series of matches. One incident during a match is used to award MOM status or getting a highly praised assessment of performance in teh media.
There are so many examples of that - it is virtually endless. A player makes one line break noticeable by everyone - but missed half of his tackle attempts and he gets the MOM award or is written up in the media and put in the team of the week.
To claim that is authentic and a representative or the full scope of player performance in that game is ridiculous to say the least It is at best an effrt to pander to the public and write things that will sell their papers.
Rse of Statistics
There are various negatives to using stats alone as a means to do player assessments. Stats for one game can be completely misleading as to how a player performs in general.
However, it is not wise to ignore stats completely - since they are useful in determining tendencies in player performances. For that you have to study performances in a series of games over a longish period and see what comes up. Stats normally are a very reliable means of determination of player tendencies.
SUMAMRY
The above are two eaxmples what to look for in the case of players. Fact is that all activities of players must be put under the microscope and see how effective individual players in fact are.
The worst thing any person can do is to make generalized and flowery statements that is not based on fact - but on prejudice. I have criticized many players - but try to base my criticism of tendencies in performances - not on personal likes or dislikes. I never look at one incident in a match and then said that incident says it all.
Above all - don't look for incidents and then slant the impact to serve as a means to denigrate or praise a player. That normally comes back to bite you and merely show prejudice for or against a player.
Coach57,555 posts
25 Jul 2014, 12:34
#1
25 Jul 2014, 12:34#1
