JJ Engelbrecht - (1/0) (3/2) (9/2) (9/0) (2/0) (3/1) (4/2) (2/3) (6/1) [39/11]
Taute - (7/1) (7/0) (5/2) [19/3]
de Jongh - (4/1) (3/0) [7/1]
Jean - (5/0) (2/0) (3/1) (1/0) (7/1) (4/1) (1/0) [23/3]
JP Pietersen - (7/1) (7/2) (4/2) [18/3]
Fourie - (4/0) (8/0) (9/0) [21/0]
De Allende - (5/1) (0/2) [5/3]
Ranking
01.Jaque Fourie - 100%
02.Jean De Villiers - 88.5%
03.Juan de Jongh - 87.5%
04.Jaco Taute - 86.3%
05.JP Pietersen - 85.7%
06.JJ Engelbrecht - 78%
07.Damian De Allende - 62.5%
Well well well, not so bright after all are ya mika? hahahaha!
Outside Centre Defending 2012-2014
You're argument is unfair as most of those players have played a different amount of tests.
Ranking (2 Tests)
01.Jaque Fourie - 100%
02.Jean De Villiers - 100%
03.Jaco Taute - 93.3%
04.Juan de Jongh - 87.5%
05.JP Pietersen - 82.3%
06.JJ Engelbrecht - 66.6%
07.Damian De Allende - 62.5%
Rather than being narrow minded look at the numbers see how much they changed, JJ went from 78% in your first measurement to 66%.
We can all say for certain that Fourie and De Villiers defending isn't of the quality of a 100% tackle rate. This whole little measurement is a joke.
You can't polish a turd, you're measurement changed loads.
He is athe greatest moron on this site - ins trong comnpoetition for the outright moron race with Mozartron and Zeromoron.
The fool does not realize that stats is oly reliable when it covers a series of matches. Now he wants to use two matches as a norm for player evaluation. I would b orried if over a series that is the missed tackle ratio of De Allende - it will bring him into the Francois Steyn - Juan de Jongh category.
He missed two tckles in the first game he played in the 13 posoition and in the next game made 5 tackles missing 1 - so the Apemoron in fact use onlythe first game s a norm. Stupid doos - like the other morons.
He is athe greatest moron on this site - ins trong comnpoetition for the outright moron race with Mozartron and Zeromoron.
The fool does not realize that stats is oly reliable when it covers a series of matches. Now he wants to use two matches as a norm for player evaluation. I would b orried if over a series that is the missed tackle ratio of De Allende - it will bring him into the Francois Steyn - Juan de Jongh category.
He missed two tckles in the first game he played in the 13 posoition and in the next game made 5 tackles missing 1 - so the Apemoron in fact use onlythe first game s a norm. Stupid doos - like the other morons.
This is so funny. Two idiots trying to make a statistical argument. Sure the numbers are more reliable for many tests. But it's not tests that count you fools....it's numbers of tackles. Each tackle is an independent observation. Tests are merely a statistically irrelevant aggregation.
How many tackle attempts are sufficient to establish a trend? Certainly 20 attempts starts to provide good data. But 12 tackle attempts with very low success rate is already enough to be suspicious. And 21 tackle attempts with complete success is clearly statistically significant
My reading of Gonzo's excellent a- nalysis is Jean, Fourie, Taute and JP are almost certainly good defenders. JJ without a doubt, can't defend.
For de Jongh we need more data to be sure and it's available....his test tackling success rate is about 92%, confirming the limited data here. De Allende has poor CC stats, but it's test stats we are after and all we can say here is his defending looks suspect.
One footnote. Taute comes out high. But if you examine the tackles he actually missed, there is the horrendous miss on Dagg where he was gassed through the outside gap. This was a fatal miss, because like Jordaan's misses on Fruean and Read, it pointed to a weakness that will be exploited more and more as teams identify it. In Taute's case the data does not provide the whole story.
Thanks for that excellent bit of a-nalysis Gonzo.
"The fool does not realize that stats is oly reliable when it covers a series of matches. Now he wants to use two matches as a norm for player evaluation. "
This is the same snot-brained fool who only has one....one......one... May I say it again..... one..... single string of figures from one............. note one............ single game to judge the entire defensive abilities of a certain player. Probably the biggest bloody hypocrate this site has ever seen.
What I did was to convert each and every set of data to percentages, i.e.: 3/2= 60% success rate. I got the 60% from 3/(3+2)*100=60%. I then added up all the percentages and averaged it out. JJ's figures then became:
100% (1/0), 60%(3/2), 81.82%(9/2), 100%(9/0), 100%(2/0), 75%(3/1), 66.67%(4/2), 0%(2/3) and 85.71%(6/1). All the percentages adds up to 709.20, which means that on average JJ made 78.80% of his tackles.
In the same way the rest came to:
Taute-89.73%
Juan De Jongh-90%
Jean de Villiers-91.79%
JP Pietersen-77.30%
Jaque Fourie-100%
Damien de Allende-41.67%
In "order of merit", it comes to:
JF, JDJ, JDV, Taute, JJ, JPP, De Allende
It does not matter how pedantic you want to be about the formulae that you use, it boils down to what Moz has said when he said:
"My reading of Gonzo's excellent a-nalysis is Jean, Fourie, Taute and JP are almost certainly good defenders. JJ without a doubt, can't defend.
For de Jongh we need more data to be sure and it's available....his test tackling success rate is about 92%, confirming the limited data here. De Allende has poor CC stats, but it's test stats we are after and all we can say here is his defending looks suspect."
Looking at your BS makes my day - I cannot believe that adiults knows that little about rugby - and that they can manage to distort issues as badly as you three morons manage to do. Really funny -
For me I would like to see hotspots of where most meters were gainend and line breaks occur.
Is it between 12 and 13, 13 and wing or on the wing.
In Jacque Fouries case, his defensive style is to push up and prevent any play from occurring in his channel where as with JJ or De Allende they tend to drift giving the attacking player a gap to run into. It gives the outsite back more chance to drift on to a pass and run into space which makes it harder for the 13 to shut down. Where as with Fourie there are no time to run into space or drift onto the pass, but it is also very dangerous as the playmaker can hold onto the ball longer and allow the receiving player to get pass behind Fourie, but it only works when the playmaker has pressure on him. This is normally the rush defence. A chip or grubber can expose you and one bad timing can leave you vunrable. It use to work well against the All blacks as they use to stand so deep and their players use to get flustered in having players up in their face.
It is more of a Jake White style defence, Habana did the same to push up from the outside and cutting down the wing play
The Assies are far better in dealing with rush defence as they play more flatter and have players that can hold the ball up.
i would not try the rush defence against the all blacks as they have figured out how the are far more relaxed on the ball and seem to be happy to move back during a few plays and then strike when there is a gap. They are also really good at keeping the ball of the ground and away from rucks.
I posted a lengthy story about them, and how I made contact with them, probably about 2 or three years ago. Fast is that the "stats" published by ESPN is a drop in the ocean. Some of their clients include the likes of:
Football: Arsenal, Chelsea, Barcelona, Bayrn Munich, Hull City, Italy, Roma FC, etc
Rugby: Blues, Crusaders, Highlanders, Harlequins, All Blacks, etc.
They had the Super Rugby stats open to the public at one stage and I used to download all the spreadsheets and videoclips from their site until they closed it for the public. I phoned them to find out if there was a way for me to access the spreadsheets only and for my own use. They told me that the only way was to buy an annual license at £12,000, at that stage.
Likely for our friend, who believes in his little strings of ESPN stats as if it was the Gospel, those stats are not available any longer because that would have nailed his perceptions of certain players time and time again. He would have nowhere to hide with all his silly deductions and assumptions and more importantly most, if not all, of his biased opinions have been blown out of the water. Those are indeed real statistics and not minute pieces of nonsensical data. Watch the videoclip here.
That gives you an idea what the pros work with and then we have a bunch of clowns on here who think they can do the trick using a few figures from ESPNscrum. It is sometimes more dangerous to know/have a little than to know/have nothing.
I am sick and tired of your lies. Jordaan missed ONE tackle omn Freuan - but you keep on lieing aboout a second miss. This is why it is impossible to discuss rugby issues with you - you invent a load of rubbish and then state it as facts.
The issue is that you use stats when it fits your argument and ignore it if it does not. That in itself is dishonesty.
Secondly - you get quality of tackles as well. I have seen you distoriting quality of tackles beyond belief. Lets take the Jordaan issue -
* he missed one tackle and the quuality of the second tackle was not goood enough to prevent off-loading of the ball.
That is fine if you said that - but you did not - and that is where the degree of false statements come into the picture.
Noew lets look at some other cases. In the case of Alberts - the stats never count and he is made out by you to be a strong tackler. In the case of Matfield - the stats suddenly count - bcause he made sufficient tackles - but when the quality of his tackles is questioned - you go back to a tackle in 2007 to claim how strong a tackler he is.
Fact is - Alberts has a very low tackle count for a loosie and his missed tackle ratio is high but when it comes to evaluate the quality of his tackles the picture painted about strong tackles is not really in evidence. That raises the question - is the ball carrier tackled back and or lossing ball possession as a result of the tackle. Insofar as Alberts is coincerned the latter just do not happen - so the quality of his stackles are average.
In the case of Matfield - he never tackles a player back and there is no ball possission losses as well. The ball carrier goes forward in the tackle and ball retention happens with ease. So in fact he is a weak tackler.
Insofar as Jordaan's quality of tackles are concerned - go and watch the Blues game to see how he dealt with Nonu. Those tackles he made was all of good quality. Because over two seasons he missed two tackles in Super 15 - he is now demonaized by you and your cronies. If it happens regularly in a season then go ahead - you have a real argument - but if it is one incident a sesobn - you are guilty of not judging players fairly and objectively. However, if there is one thing nobody can accuse you of - it is objectivity.
Status: Senior player
Posts: 3614 RE: Outside Centre Defending 2012-2014
September 04, 2014, 19:29:09 I have often questioned the validity of the fantasy statisticians on this website. Is their data comprehensive, does it have enough context, is it even accurate or is it just a means for the "statisticians" to self delude themselves further.
I do not trust the "stats" from the fantasy games, if that is what you are referring to. They are weighted values which in itself poses a problem.
Why do you alwaays add to what actually happened in the game precisely without embellishing it by weird things like you do so as too support your arguments with facts. Would no try have been scored if Ndumgane made his tackle - which he missed completely or if Fransie followed the ball as full back and was there to cover the tackle. So Jordaan gets blamed for two other flops and then you made a deduction that is weird to say the least.
Facts are clear. Jordan mde his tcklew - not dragged the way you described. It was not a good enough tackle to prevent an off-load of the ball to Marshall - the latter was supposed to be tackled by Ndungane but he missed his tackle completely. There was no cover defense by anybody and a try was scored. Those are the facts - not the distortions that you added.
What you rate is totally meaningless - because your ratings is entirely influenced by whether you like or dislike players and never a fait and true assessment. In that you leave out all facts and your rating becomes a distorition of the truth. You do that every time you write a so-called morzoscope. In the above case you leave out the fact that Ndungane completely missed his tackle. If he made that final tackle befor ethe try was scored - would there have been a try?
This is not the first time that you do those kind of additions to facts. It comes out in every thread you participate in on this site when it concerns a player you do not like. When flopis are made by a player you like - you either keep completely quiet or write a whole story to justify that flop, blaming everyboody else but the real culprit.
You regularly makes allegations that is of doubtful truth and is distoreted completley. Virtually every allegation is based on what you would like to have seen as happening - not what actually happened.
That makes it impossible for anyone to discuss issues logiaclly and not losing his temper. Please stick to facts and I would agree with you - if not do not expect support for your point of view. .
By the way I see Dave has been banned based on some complaint lodge by a member - just a simple wuaetion - did you lodge the complaint or was it zeromoron. I think that it was not Bonzo the ASpremoron though.
Okay OOm, here it is. Jordaan makes contact with Fruean just outside the 10 metre line....six strides later Fruean offloads still standing....Jordaan is on the deck clinging on to his pants. That puts the Sader outside Ndungane and the try follows directly. Its right at the start of this clip so you cant miss it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivrL5_RrRoI
"He gets on the outside of Jordaan and because of that he sucks in NDungane, which opens up the space"
Game, set and match
As for your allegation that I turned Dave in, you should have some proof before you make accusations. Whatever I said to ED about Dave was said right on this Board in an open posting. I asked Ed to remove one string, not to ban any poster.
You are total rubbish, aren't you?
I watched that clip four times - there was no evidence of the 6 meter or ten meter drag you carried on about. The description I gave was much more accurate than your garbage.
I did not accuse you of asking for Dave to be banned - I merely asked a question of whether you did ask for it. So I accept it was not you - but somebody did lodge a complaint.
Please stick to facts when describing incidents - you are talking crap most of the time and too often get caught out.
First, from where Jordaan started the tackle to where the carrier released was about 5 metres. Note that first contact was probably about a meter back, just before the 10 meter line, but that was on a different camera angle.
Ndungane was on his man all the way until it looked like Jordaan's tackle wasn't secure. He was caught in two minds for just a fraction of a second - critically at the split second just before the pass went out his attention and balance shifted to Jordaan's man, who was still going strong. You can see his body checking in the image below, breaking all his momentum. That brief pause was enough to have him beaten on the outside by a man who had momentum. These things happen fast. There's no doubt the weak tackle opened the gates.
It does make the Board a more tedious place when posters lie. Thanks for that additional analysis Pakie, it really clarifies the changes brought about by the botched tackle.
But next time the subject of Fruean vs Jordaan comes up Clever will just point to the stats and say Jordaan missed one tackle. Honesty is taught or not taught at home at a young age, and once a liar always a liar.


