Super XV Team Stats 2019 - Rounds 1-3 (RSA)

TRIES

05.Sharks - 11
08.Lions - 07
11.Bulls - 06
15.Stormers - 02

CLEAN BREAKS

02.Sharks - 34
12.Bulls - 20
14.Lions - 18
15.Stormers - 10

CARRIES

08.Stormers - 317
09.Sharks - 314
10.Lions - 294
12.Bulls - 283

METRES CARRIED

06.Sharks - 1200
09.Bulls - 987
14.Stormers - 767
15.Lions - 757

DEFENDERS BEATEN

06.Bulls - 63
08.Stormers - 55
12.Sharks - 44
14.Lions - 38

TACKLE %

01.Bulls - 88.4%
03.Stormers - 87.7%
09.Lions - 85.6%
10.Sharks - 85.1%

LINEOUT %

01.Bulls - 100%
05.Lions - 93.3%
09.Stormers - 87.3%
11.Sharks - 85.1%

OFFLOADS

07.Sharks - 24
09.Lions - 18
11.Stormers - 18
13.Bulls - 16

SCRUM %

01.Sharks - 100%
04.Lions - 96%
12.Stormers - 85%
13.Bulls - 82%

RUCK %

07.Sharks - 96%
09.Stormers - 96%
10.Bulls - 95%
15.Lions - 93%

YELLOW CARDS

01.Sharks - 03
02.Stormers - 02
07.Lions - 01

Where did you got those stats  from?   Is it iro all three Rounds or only Round 3?   There is a string of inaccuracies in there that makes me wonder about its origins.     

This is from SANZAR, and they are al l accurate. It's for all three rounds.

How many scrums did the Sharks lose though? Here we see the limitation on stats. However, these are accurate. So much for those "strings of inaccuracies".

Also, looking at the stats as whole may highlight problem areas. I'm surprised a stat junkie such as yourself is willing to throw out every stat. 

AO

I look at individual performances on an individual basis and am objective,   Once I am satisfied  that there is a reason for my assessments I check whether there are some form of confirmation as to the statements made - there may be some things I have missed out on.  

I never go with a prejudiced view on players and see how the players fit into the team - where they will contribute to the team effort or not,

Generals stats in the main gives no real indications as to what happened in games - bit not give a rea; result in how players contribute to winning or losing of games.

So the usefulness of stats is limited to confirmation of what  happened in games iro certain requirements in games and selection criteria.      

It's a good thing you aren't prejudiced, or you might have looked a little foolish...

12.Vorster (Lions)
Pass: 6
Run: 7
Metres: 13 
Breaks: 0
Beaten: 1
Offloads: 0
Tackles: 3/2
Penalties: 0

12.Esterhuizen (Sharks)
Pass: 8
Run: 4
Metres: 11 
Breaks: 1
Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0
Tackles: 6/1
Penalties: 0

12.Smith (Sharks)
Pass: 4
Run: 6
Metres: 51 
Breaks: 0
Beaten: 1
Offloads: 0
Tackles: 1/2
Penalties: 

12.De Allende (Stormers)
Pass: 6
Run: 6
Metres: 5 
Breaks: 0
Beaten: 0
Offloads: 0
Tackles: 7/2
Penalties: 0

12.Sage (Bulls)
Pass: 3
Run: 6
Metres: 20 
Breaks: 0
Beaten: 2
Offloads: 0
Tackles: 7/3
Penalties: 1

Yes, Damian was the best 12 on display on the weekend. That's purely objective. 

But who made the biggest balls-up of the above this Round?  Esterhuzen.    Get real - you do not understand anything relating to player performance evaluation at all and least of all what role is played in looking at stats,   Stats is at best a confirmation about what happened on the field of play - where the actual evaluation is done by experts.   

That is why Esterhuzien was the only of the above 12's  who were benched early in the game.  He was not meeting on-field requirements.

Incidentally of the above lot I believe Sage is the better 12 used,   He did well enough playing for the Blizbokke and has a really good future in the 15 man game,   I would in future also consider Impi Visser - also with the Blitzbokke - as a potential inside center, especially since the other lot is not doing anything to justify selection.       .

You can blame that intercept pass squarely on Esterhuizen, or you can ask why the Sharks forced an attack that wasn't on. Coenie (looks like) got the ball with a good head of steam. Perfect opportunity to charge it up and lay a platform. Instead he flings a wobbling hospital to Paul, who had Etzebeth in his face already. Paul now throws a wobbling hospital to Esterhuizen, who gets man and ball as well. He flings it to Nkosi who, instead of running onto the pass, tries to take it while simultaneously jumping out of Willemse's way - watch the reverse angle replay. Stupid play as a team.

Just a wonderful justification for Esterhuizen.   In such cases it is always better to take the tackle and make sure the ball is recovered in such cases.   None fo the players did that and the final idiocy was by Esterhuizen.   Making a pass like he did - covering more than 5 meters is not opnly bad - it is ridiculous.   None of the players mentioned did what was reasonable - the worst pass was actually thrown by Esterhuizen - whether his cronies wants to admit it or not.

The other statement they ignore is the issue of his early benching.   If eh was that good - why was he benched at minute 51?   He was a totally useless during the whole game and made no real impression - the only thing Mozart could come up with is a senseless long distance kick he made over the tryline as an example of Esterhuizen's achievements.   As it turns out to be the farce was continued when the Sharks tried to counter-attack and ended up at he  same spot from which the kick was made.

However, despite the fairy tales of Pakie, Silly Billy and Mozart I have stated in the past that neither  Esterhuizen and De Allende is the answer to our center problem,   That is why I have been referri ng to Impi Visser in the past and added Sage to that list.   Fact is - with all his shortcomings De Allende is by some distance a better player than Esterhuizen anyway and no fairy tales by the three members mentioned will change that,         .     

Taking the tackle wide when the defence is swarming all over you will likely lead to a turnover. Who would have secured possession? How long would it have taken the Sharks to setup an relieving kick? Nobody is justifying the Esterhuizen intercept, but Pakie is assessing that entire phase. One of the reasons why I post videos that capture ruck-to-ruck action is because you need that information to provide context. Pakie has just provided some context, and you have chosen to ignore that. 

What has Visser done to warrant such lofty claims? What specifics have you picked up from Sage and what references can you provide? You aren't showing any real knowledge of any of these players. 

Also the same person who defended Damian's 2015 Wallaby test. Not only defended him, but felt the need to make Pollard a scapegoat whilst slandering Pakie in the process. 

The dim dose again.   Unlike you dim ones I did not defend De Jager or anyone else about the loss to the AB's in 2016.   While you two were on a witch hunt against players I merely pointed out what Matfield did  and how he buggered up badly in two instances in the 20 minutes he in fact played.   That was when you went bananas and still is.   What a  load of ignorant BS.

Now suddenly it is back to 2015 with both you two.   What about the fact that at the time I wrote repeatedly that making 15  tackles in that Aussie game does not excuse 6 missed tackles.   That is not defending De Allende - it merely pointed out both sides of the argument.   But then you lied and lied about what actually happened in that game and so did Pakie.  

So have fun and I think it would be better not to try and sideline the discussion on this thread, but that is the classic behavior of you two when cornered,