The Only Way is Essex -adjusted to Rugby discussion

I have never watched the programme on BBC - but have noticed only the name.   When I thought about the name from a rugby perspective - I invariably come up with two distinct posters on this Board - namely Saffex and Mozart.   Anyone discussing things with those two must beware - they have some distinct qualities and I want to mention some of those especially - both they adhere to some ideas - but differ on others.

 

The Usge of Statistics  

Easy - there is a huge difference here between the two.  Because stats normally do not support Saffex's interpretation of games - he basically ignores them and says stats do not reflect the contents of the game and must be totally ignored.

Mozart has a much more complex approach.   He ignores stats if those do not support his arguments.  When stats are glaringly opposed to what he advocates - then he uses the same approach as Saffex - better be ignored  completely.   However, what is more problematic - he tries to manipulate them to fit his arguments.   He would ignore part of the match stats and concentrate on other parts where he can advance the interests of players he likes or denigrate those he does not like.   That basically is an approach that can be questionable - when Mozart comes up with stats - it is better to check for yourself what really happened on the field of play.

As a typical example one has to refer to the case of De Jongh in the Twickenham test.   His stats showed as follows:-

  de Jongh 0/0 0 0/1/0 0 0 0 0 0 3/0 0/0 0 0/0

Now lets get to Mozart's interpretation of the above.   De Jongh did nothing wrong in the test so there is nothing detrimental in his performance.   I must admit I admire Mozart on that interpreation - De Jongh did virtually nothing in that test - so how can he do anything wrong?

 

Team of the Week

As soon as a name of a player pops up that they support - Saffex and Mozart has something in common - they splash it all over this Board.   If you check the game itself and even go to the extent of checking the stats on the game - you would fnd that the journalists or jounalist involved have made some really dubious selections.   However, if they do not quote the names on this site - be assured of one thing - the players they do not like feature in those TOW teams.

The latest brouhaha is he case of Thorne  being in the team of the week in Round 16.   The stats showed a player wwho took one line-out, made less than 2 meters average every time he carried the ball and made 6 tackles and missed 2 - actually sub-par stats for a Lock.   However, Mozart jumped at it and started a thread on why Bakkies Botha should be in the Springbok team.

He came to a really funny conclusion - namely that Bakkies is or may be a better lock now than he was three years ago.   That really is a classic - so I watched the Toulon - Castres game again to see how this improved Bakkies is performing in that game.   Bakkies did the absolute minimum - he was not really performing in line-outs - did no real ball carrying (was no enforcer) and the one time he got the ball, he made a forward pass.   

Saffex to his credit does not believe in this hearkening back to the past complex of Mozart.

 

Manufacturing of Informaton

Here we have another common trait  between the two valued members of the Board.   If the info clashes with their image they go on the rampage.   I made the mistake of placing the profile information on loose forwards on the Board and the two of them nearly went beserk.   The stats are out of date and wrong.   When the one source on the internet said Botha weighs 102 kgs - Saffex came up with information that he manufacured as a 109 kg weight.

Then the checking of sources started as a matter of real urgency - and we found two sources putting his weight at 103 kgs and ultimately Saffex came up with a source saying thathe weighs 105 kgs.   That was not enough for them.  Both came with their own conclusion that he weighs 109 kgs - because he is a big man.  Mozart then manufactured an allegation that I said Botha is carrying flap - a real skyscraper if ever there was one.   I could call this spreading a lie - but being a genlteman I would rather not call a member a liar.

The other player I mentioned was Labuschagne.   His weight is 105 kgs - but he is small and weak according to the two fundis mentioned.   Mozart must believe he is carrying flap - because how can a player of theat height and weight be so weak.   What a farce!!!

 

Defence

Oops - you better not raise an issue of defensive performance of players on this Board.   Then the real argument started.   When pointed out that -

*   De Jongh is the poorest tackler in Super 15 this year with a miss tackle rate of circa 30% of all attempted tackles - Mozart went ballistic.   De Jongh miss tackles because he is such a strong tackler - I beliee the joke of the year.    Hell - how is it that a strong tackler miss all those tackles then?

*    In the case of Engelbrecht - Saffex never saw a missed tackle in any games he played in and never saw a defensive mistake on his part.   Saffex never accepts the argument that Engelbrecht do make defensive mistakes at all - and the fact that stats indicate otherwise is rubbish.   The compiler of the stats must be made to provide such false info.

*    Then you have the classic case of Jordaan.  He cannot according to Mozart and Saffex defend to save his life.   He missed one tackle on Fruean - but that must be manufactured into two missed tackles by these two fundis.   Jordaan has the lowest missed tackle ratio of any number 12 in SA during 2013 - but according to these two he is the worst defender.

 

Age of Players Coupled to Performance

Here we have a classic case of difference between the two valued members.   Saffex condemns everyone above 28 years of age as unacceptable - whether they still perform better than younger players or not.   Mozart loves players above the age of 28 and condemns 90% of the younger players. 

Saffex would want the team to consist of all the youngsters he has identified from Junior Teams and his main criteria is weight of players - with rare exceptions of a player like Jantjies.   If he has identified a young player - that player is put on a pedestal and can never be having any performances which is not classified as good.  Jantjies was generally poor this year - but Saffex reckon he was good.     

Mozart love the experience argument.   He often refers back to reputation of players they got from the past and then base his whole argument on it.   Experience to him means everything - form means nothing.   Even when aa player has not played this year at all  - his reputation and experience is the trump card.   Take Albert for instance - Mozart has a perspective that he is a strong ball carrier and produce invluable results for the Springboks - a selection must.   When evaluating last years performace as a Springbok, as well as his performance this year in the two games he played for the Sharks in Super 15 - a completely differnet picture emerges.   Alberts average ball carrying last year was extremely poor in matches played against stronger opposition - and reasonable in other matches.   Defensively he was inadequate with a comparatively low tackle count (coupled to a high miss tackle ratio) and his line-out performances were poor.   So the best method - Mozart style -  is to ignore those unpleasant facts and concentrate on the glories of the past

 

CONCLUSION

There is one thing that we all must bear in mind when debating things with those two fundis.   If they like the player - he is on a pedestal and can have no deficiencies.   When they dislike a player - deception is used to denigrate him.   That is why debate with them is so interesting - and at the same time boring.   They never veer from their viewpoints and they use all kinds of predictabnle stratagems to sidetrack issues.   That is the reason for all kinds of personal remarks and attacks on members who dare to disagree with them.   Not very nice - that one - but they remain interesting members - who can be counted on being the chief comedians on this site. 

     

 

 

 

   

 

Ou Maaik, I think "The Only Way is Essex" is the name of a TV show that suits Saffex, but for Moffie, I prefer "The Biggest Loser".

 

I can think of a few names of TV shows that suit Baboon-ou . . . among others: "Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader?", "Arrested Development" and, of course, "Alias"!

 

When I think of the naive rooitwit what immediately springs to mind is a very funny programme - "Kids say the darndest things" hosted by the late Art Linkletter. Though to be honest those youngsters were of course a lot smarter than ou rooitwit and a lot more mature as well!

Now as for these very serious allegations against snapster I would like to add a furher piece of evidence. How about when matfield said his best playing weight was between 106 and 108 kg! Never mind also that the bulle website also gave him as 108 kg an as did the Boks website and quite obviousl yhe looks and played like a light weight. However snapster to this day insists on matfields weight being 115 kg!

The wiley Dr Moz is a very  tricky operator Mike and shrewed to boot. You had better be careful when dealing with the master - especially when it comes to stats! 

One thing about Alberts. If all you are going to do is setting him up to be gang tackled then he is not going to make meters - who in the world will? Its the tactical failure that is at the bottom of those stats.  Hence my scepticism relating to rugby stats although they do have some use.

Stats are only useful as part of an overall picture. And then it still varies from position to position and game to game. A simple example, if there is a low scoring forward dominated test, you can be pretty sure your backline players, especially the fullback and wingers, running stats will look shit, which does not mean they played badly. In short stats are useful, but are not reliable without other information.

 

Nope ... I reckon "The Fat Doctor" is best suited to ol dimple butt Dave!!

 

Bluebok

I do not take stats for individual games too seriously.   I generally look at stats over a series of games as indicative of what can be expected from players.   The stats over a year would indicate what qualities players are showing.   It would indicate whether there are deficiencies and what they are.  

Problem with stats for specific games only is that flash in the pan performances can be quoted and are quoted by ewspecially my friend Mozart.   He loves the one-off occurences in games - which he then generalized as charactic of a player or manipulate into something reflecting a general picture of facts.

On the whole I hope the players with poor statistical records can correct same this year - but am not overly optimistic about it.