The fallacy of naked missed tackle stats

Aplon apparently missed 3 of 5 tackles. Sounds awful. But examine his first tackle miss. It was at the match kickoff,  he went after the receiver at full speed, made poor contact and ultimately missed the tackle. But he forced the player closer to touch and Liebenberg  put him away. Stormers lineout 10 metres outside the 22. Good missed tackle....you bet, it was a low probability tackle attempt made with full cover.
A few minutes later Nanai- Williams shed Aplon leading directly to a Chiefs try.
Both tackles register as missed, but they are vastly different. A simplistic use of tackle stats, without some analysis of the tackles attempted is worse than inadequate, its often misleading. Stats are a confirmation, not a proof.

Absolutely - all tackles are definitely not created equal. Fullbacks I reckon have it the toughest.

 I agree that all tackles are not equal as oimatey says - but I do not agree that in some cases (like Aplon, Morne Steyn, Francois Steyn and De Jongh) missed tackles count for nothing, while in other cases (like JJ Engelbrecht, Jordaan and now De Allende) it is the final nail on the coffin of players.
Missed tackles are a phenomenon that happens in rugby and is an aspect that obviously cannot be ignored - since it impacts on the outcome of games.   Missed tackles happening in one game or in one incident in a game can normally be disregarded - but if stats indicate a tendency if players over a period and number of games (ie if there is a tendency on the part of players to miss tackles) then that tendency must surely impact on the selection of such players on higher level.
          

 Yep indeed like wee matfiled going back meters when tackling the sc rummie - bwahahahaha

Beeno
Mozart Is obviously doing his normal here - when stats suit his purpose use it - when not try and find an excuse why it should not be used.
He also developed a theory and word to help players he likes to excuse their extremely low and often missed tackles by saying other players make "process tackles".   
Is is obviously the normal situation when it comes to using stats to discredit players he dislikes and use it if it fits his arguments.  Sick thinking  - but still typically Mozart.   

 Bottom line is, stats provide no context

A perfect example would be CleaverSpike on Morné at Ellis Park claiming that he missed tackles head-on, was targeted all day long. Using the stats he tried to weave the impression that Morné single-handedly cost the Boks that test! He went on endlessly for months on end hanging onto this game. Then comes I to post a video, and what do we see? He almost always made his tackles as a cover defender, after others had missed their man he came in to clean up. He even prevented a try at the death after New Zealand broke out and were clear for a try. He prevented another earlier in the second half when, again, they broke down the touchline. So what was stated to be a porous defender only made an unsuccessful tackle when chasing down attackers from behind in a no-win situation. He made his head-on tackles - of which he was directly targeted only once - each and every time, this including locks and hooker! You see, the people who cling to statistics alone without any kind of context are liars to the core. Not once have I seen any differently, anywhere. It's most easy to propagate a lie through statistics than in-game footage. So we have de Jongh, Frans, Alberts, Aplon, Morné, Jean, Fourie, Pietersen - some of our most assured defenders - being called out by the hack job approach group of liars. I say to them, provide more proof or shut-up.

 Sun Tzu
Forget about the Ellis Park test and look at Morne's defense throughout the RC  and it remained a piss poor performance on his part.   Morne never was a good defending flyhalf - because he always try to avoid contact at all costs.   De Jongh is shit poor defender - Frans since 2007 had a record of defensive lapses, Alberts make such a few tackles per game - his misses are just another bonus for the opposition.  Those are facts - it does not serve your purpose so the naked truth is unacceptable.
What a person must do is to play those defensive dolts and accept what you get and see the excuses from the dolts on this site are after the fact.   That would be tragic - but the gyratics by the local village idiots  should be really funny to note.  

 No it doesn't. I can use other tests, in fact, all of them, to prove you are a liar. You claim he is targeted, in reality he isn't. You claim he misses lots of tackles, in reality he only has a tendency to chase no hope tackles and those account for the vast majority of his misses. You claim he is not a strong defender yet he puts down players like Retallick, Hore, Tuifua comfortably. When all is said and done you are a liar with zero credibility, you are exposed, a flat tire that won't quit.

 In my experience real intelligent people are rarely know- it-alls. Couple of know-it-alls on this site. 

Sun Tzu 
Poor Morne - what a write-up about a failed flyhalf!!!!  A flyhalf even his club will not start with because he really is not up to standard - and he never will be anything bar a good goal kicker - an average flyhalf at best otherwise.  And a weak defender to boot - what joke.  
Keep them coming - you really are funny.

 A weak defender you say, yet you endorsed the weakest 10 in South African rugby's modern history. Been playing professional rugby since 2012 and has not yet dominated ONE contact situation. He blew the Dunedin test and he blew the home test. You are too dishonest and biased to admit the truth. Hide behind your stats and broken facade, it's actually quite amusing. From the tripe exposed about Du Preez all the way to the Ellis Park test your lies have been exposed. I only regret that you couldn't even make a game of it, too easy. Game, set and match. Good day to you!

 The only player who blew the Dunedin test was MORNE STEYN - so piss poor he had to be replaced early.  He had some assistance from Dean Greyling though.

Sun seriously, it's a waste of time. This fool's only interest is to be contrary. But given he is arguing for naked stats, you would think he would mention Alberts had the best Sharks tackling stats today.  But don't hold your breath.
I have totally cut the fool off....it's like losing a pesky fly out your car window,

 The deceptive fool thimks that I have not seen the tackle stats of Alberts today.  For the first time this year he did make the number of tackles required from a loosie - I was really surprised to see that one.
However, I stick to the truth - and just once want to see where your prejudice against certain players does not come out loud and clear in any postings made.  It really is pathetic.
I do not argue on the basis of naked stats - I argue about selective usage of stats and also said loud and clear that one game or one incident occurring  in a game is not the norm for determination of whether a player fails in defense.   Stats is useful if there is a clear indication through a series of matches that missing of tackles in fact are in evidence throughout such a series.   
That is different from Mozart - who is a one-incident stooge and who will endlessly quote such an incident - while finding excuses for the deficiency in some players he favours.   
Aplon miss a tackle and it is no problem - Morne Steyn missed tackles and it is no problem - Francois Steyn missed tackles - but it is no problem.  Heaven helps Englbrecht or De Allende - and it suddenly becaomes a problem of unbelievable magnitude.
It is easy to say I am a fool and that you ignore me .   I will keep on posting responses when I feel that you are talking bullshit - and that is 90% of the time.