By LeftArmSpinner -
May 4th 2009 @ 7:40am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...A Wallabies squad based on Super 14 stats
Robbie Deans was quoted recently as being likely to select his first Wallabies squad for 2009 on the basis of statistics. This is in line with his preference for players who play out the full 80 minutes and who are constant contributors rather than wafting in and wafting out.
While there are always many factors involved in selecting a sporting team, they essentially fall into two categories: objective and subjective.
Neither provide all the necessary justification to the selection of any team, let alone a national team and entry to the exclusive and life long club that is the Wallabies.
In the full knowledge that my fellow Roarers have plenty of subjective views, I will provide a weekly team based only on statistics and not provide my own subjective views until the thread develops.
I have taken raw statistics, adjusted (removed) for players who have not met a minimum participation level, and then divided the player’s total score by the number of minutes played. It is consistent measure of player effectiveness and contribution.
As John Connolly said in Sunday’s newspaper, it is ideal to choose two for each position in a squad of 30 players. I have done this literally.
Clearly there will be players who can cover more than one position. I will leave those choices to my Roar colleagues and Robbie Deans.
1 Ben Alexander BRU Prop
1 Benn Robinson WAR Prop
2 T. Polota-Nau WAR Hooker
2 Stephen Moore BRU Hooker
3 Pekahou Cowan WFR Prop
3 Al Baxter WAR Prop
4 Van Humphries RED Lock
4 Nathan Sharpe WFR Lock
5 Tom Hockings WFR Lock
5 Peter Kimlin BRU Lock
6 Mitch Chapman BRU Backrower
6 Julian Salvi BRU Backrower
7 David Pocock WFR Backrower
7 George Smith BRU Backrower
8 Richard Brown WFR Backrower
8 Matt Hodgson WFR Backrower
9 Luke Burgess WAR Scrum half
9 Brett Sheehan WAR Scrum half
10 Matt Giteau WFR Five Eight
10 Quade Cooper RED Five Eight
11 Peter Hynes RED Winger
11 Lachlan Turner WAR Winger
12 James O’Conner WFR Inside centre
12 Tom Carter WAR Inside centre
13 Digby Ioane RED Outside centre
13 Gene Fairbanks BRU Outside centre
14 S. Mortlock BRU Winger
14 Drew Mitchell WFR Winger
15 Mark Gerrard BRU Fullback
15 Mark McLinden RED Fullback
So the poll question is:
Loading ...Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(52)
Sin-ick said | May 4th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Quade Cooper?? Seriously?? What stats did you use to come up with that one?? He has to be the worst of all the Aussie flyhalves for the past few weeks……
Unless you have the stats to back it up…….???
stillmissit said | May 4th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
How very interesting LAS. Now we know how Wang Eye (EJ) got it so wrong for so long.
It strikes me that the only ones that appear correct in both instances FMPOV are, Hooker, OS breakaway and the Hynes/Turner wing.
Knives Out said | May 4th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Wang Eye?
stillmissit said | May 4th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Knives Out – It is what the players used to call Eddie Jones that or evil eye. They reckoned that when he got the evil eye on you, you knew you were on the way out.
Eddie gets my vote as the worst Aussie coach in my nearly 40 years of watching. But that is totally off subject.
I think the point that LAS is making is very valid and that is you cant pick teams on objectivity alone.
Nashi said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
LAS, can you do the same for the All Blacks and Boks. It’d be interesting to see how they compare with last years teams. Certainly the stats would seem to suggest that Australia would field a very different team if it was based solely on stats.
I can see only see three or four positions where I would agree and those are pretty much the no-brainers such as hooker and openside. Some of the selections are just “out there”. Cooper at 10, Carter at 12, Fairbanks at 13, Mclinden at 15. Wow, Henry et al would salivate at the prospect!
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Sin-ick, statistically, Cooper (27.8) is second only to Giteau (32.7) in the 10 jersey. Christian Lealiifano is third placed (23.2) and Halangahu (22.3) and Beale (15.6), not that it mattered didnt qualify because they didnt meet the minimum requirement. play enough time. Barnes (20.1) met the minimum requirement but was even less effective.
Technically, O’Connor, also a 10, (29.7), was second behind Giteau but he played primarily 12 and so got the nod for the 12 jersey.
Comparing Cooper to other inside backs, (10, 12 and 13), Isaia Toeava 298, Matt Giteau 283, Ma’a Nonu 278, Wynand Olivier 266, Francois Steyn 244, Morné Steyn 243 and Quade Cooper 240.
Stillmissit, correct. there is much more to a player than just stats. And, you can see how much of an effect the playing style of the team affects the players performances.
Subjectively, I think that the props, hookers, and locks and 7’s are spot on as are Halves and at least the first XV of the backs. But it ignores several things, like blooding younger players for the RWC. Also, if you could get a player to get Tahu in space, he could murder defences, as he showed last weekend……but….not statistically (20.1) although that it with the Tahs in the baddest of days.
Sin-ick said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
LAS,
What numbers are you spitting out? You are saying that Cooper is 27.8…….
Maybe I missed something, but 27.8 what??
Sam Taulelei said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
This concept is sounding remarkably similar to John Mitchell’s ramblings in 2002 when he selected virtually the entire Crusaders team as the starting All Blacks XV.
Selection in itself is a subjective exercise, comparing and discussing what you see players doing, what you know they’re capable of doing at test level and whether some players can step up to the next level. They’ll also have to fit in with the gameplan that Deans will be pursuing.
Lies, lies and damned statistics – surely something must be amiss to omit Berrick Barnes from the selection, he would have to be an automatic first choice Wallaby.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
each player’s performance is scored on the basis of what they do, tackles, runs, etc. for each game. I have taken this cumulative total to date and then adjusted it for number of minutes played. If you dont do this, players who have missed some games, cannot compete with players who have played and scored points. So, total points / minutes played. also, players need to have scored a minimum number of points (100) to remove players who jsut play 10 minutes, make a few runs and tackles at the end of the game and get a very high score per minute played.
27.8 is actually .278 points per minute played. So Giteau has scored 283 points in 866 minutes or 32.7.
nashi, but remember that those players are the reserve in those positions. The first player listed is the higher rated player. so the run on 10 would be Giteau, with Cooper his back up. Henry wont be licking so much…..
Greg Truman said | May 4th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Cool. Statistical proof (albeit, not scientific, with the greatest respect LAS) as to why none of the Australian sides are in the top four — why rugby is in trouble in Australia and why the Waratahs are insanely, infuriately boring. OK. Forget the Waratahs thing.
Anyhoo, should Robbie Deans be one of your disciples (are you a world rated squash player?) you’ve provided a solid foundation to bet Australia will come in fourth in the tri-nations.
Not to say the run on 15 wouldn’t be fine, but jeepers, only the mothers of some of the second choices cld like their chances of Wallaby selection.
Ben C said | May 4th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
It seems to me the aim is to select the strategy and pick the team to deliver that strategy, so statistics should be weighted in favour of the desired strategy. They should inform but no determine selection.
Interestingly, there seems to be less controversy over the forwards than the backs. I wonder if this says something about the statistics or is something profound about the difference between forward and back play. I agree with Sin-ick, to properly comment we have to know how the statistics were compiled and analysed.
Who Needs Melon said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
You have to admit this idea that Deans, as LAS has quoted, is “likely to select his first Wallabies squad for 2009 on the basis of statistics” is interesting.
As a specatator (but more as a PLAYER), you’d LOVE to know exactly what type of statistics were being analysed and how they were being weighted for each position.
LAS: I suspect your statistics paint a picture with too course a brush. For instance:
For PROPS the statistics you MIGHT want are:
– % of scrums won (weighted VERY VERY highly),
– % of tightheads won (same),
– Tackles per game (high)
– turnovers forced against opposition (average weighting)
– points per game (average?)
– number of rucks participated in per game (lesser)
– running metres (fairly low)
– offloads (low)
– deduct point for turnovers conceded, penalties conceded, etc.
Or something like that. Notice drop goal % does not feature above.
For a HOOKER you’d presumably add “Straight throw %” as one of the top-weighted skills (sorry TPN!).
For a WING you’d obviously have a totally different set of criteria but even then I think just looking at “number of runs” and “metres per run” and the usual can be misleading. I remember hearing the Wendell Sailor used to have great stats when he was a rugby winger but it seemed to me that half his runs were at times when he should have kicked or passed and half his runs were sideways. You almost need a “how many good decisions per game” type stat which I acknowledge is virtually impossible.
Similarly for backs you almost want a “knows his way to the tryline” stat. To illustrate what I’m talking about, in the past you’ve known that if you give the ball to players like Mortlock or Latham and they are within 5 metres of the tryline that they will defy simple physics to get the ball down. Others like Lote might make more metres per game but for some reason often seem to be stopped just short of trylines.
Still, again, I wonder if the players know in advance the yardstick against which they will be measured and have been playing accordingly.
I also agree with Ben C above in that you want to pick your team based on a game plan/style. You also want to adopt a “no d1ckheads” policy. You also want a mix of experience and youth. You want guys on the bench who can cover a range of positions and not necessarily the 2nd-best specialists. And finally there are probably times when you might pick a guy who was OUTSTANDING in one category (goalkicking?) but scored less overall than others and then try pick others around him who can “cover up” whatever his other deficiencies were.
BP said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
The problem with using statistics is that they have to be used properly this seems like a case of merely mashing statistics together and assuming that it creates a meaningful result, an assumption that looks pretty flawed.
The simplest method (which means also probably the least valuable) of getting some idea of how much impact each stats has is looking at the correlation of each statistic to scoring margin advantages.
Without knowing which stats lead to increasing the differential on the scoreboard the use of any formula to gauge who was statistically better is utterly pointless.
In the US sports statistical analysis to value players is really only just becoming more accepted at the highest level, even though the “money ball” concept has been accepted in baseball for some time now.
Australian sports are unfortunately miles behind in this regard, and given our typical tendency to cling to the status quo we probably will remain there for some time.
That said I think that like any decent analysis there has to be a measure of quantitative (the numbers) and qualitative (the observed) methods used to get any decent result, relying on just one or the other won’t produce a good result.
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
sorry leftie – this is a joke right?
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Gentlemen, we have a debate. Excellent.
Sam, I didn’t say that I would select my Wallabies team on the basis of statistics. I merely quoted Robbie. No surprises that his squash mate, Mitchell is of the same opinion.
Greg, I don’t represent it as scientific, but sure it is proof of the comparative performance of the Aussie teams. You need to be busy, running, tackling, pilfering, winning scrums and lineouts etc, to play good rugby, rather than dipping in and out of a game.
Yea, some of the 2nd XV are interesting but they are at least doing the work, but it does get thin. Until injuries take their toll, there are players who could cover several positions, such as O’Connor, Barnes, Turner, Staniforth who come into the mix for the bench. The 2nd XV becomes a bench of 7.
Ben C, I agree. Stats have a role to play but selecting the correct strategy, then selecting players who suit that strategy and motivating and skilling them up is the important thing.
Remember, the stats are being used to compare players in the same positions. So lets not get into the argument of whether a tight head win is worth more than a line out or a try, etc.
It is not relevant for the purposes of this article. All complaints should be sent to Rupert Murdoch. I’m sure he would be glad to talk it through.
Melon, worry no more. Here is the basis of the stats. NB, there is no weighting for subjective matters such as the importance of a tackle or line out win. They are all the same value.
Playing 1 – 60 minutes 1
Playing more than 60 minutes 2
For each try 5
For each try assist 2
For each try save 2
For each conversion 2
For each conversion miss -1
For each penalty 3
For each penalty miss -1
For each drop goal 3
For each drop goal miss -1
Yellow card -5
Red card -15
For each run 1
For each tackle bust 1
For each offload 1
For each linebreak 3
For each error -1
For each tackle made 1
For each tackle miss -2
For each lineout take on own throw 1
For each lineout steal on opposition throw 3
For each not straight -2
For each tight head won, awarded to entire front row 5
For each tight head lost, awarded to entire front row -5
Pilfers 4
For each turn over forced 2
For each penalty – long arm -2
Sam Taulelei said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
My apologies LAS I misinterpreted the team to be your selection as opposed to a selection based upon the raw statistical data.
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
haha..Leftie you made this up yourself though right?
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Matta, The purpose of the article is to begin to compare those players performing statistically and those that end up in the team.
The article does not promote the idea of a statistical selection process. It merely presents a team selected on stats.
In my opinion, Stats have a role to play. Chisholm, several seasons ago, when he was in the Wallabies, was a trojan around the field. tackling, winning lineouts, running, breaking the line etc. Now, he doesnt do as much of that. He rates at 23, way off the 27-30 of other locks. Deans told him last year to lift his work rate.
Also, Andrew Hore has been very quiet, due to injury but last week, came back with a huge game, so busy in every aspect. Winning lineouts, running and tackling and not incurring penalties. stellar performance. Now, if he couldnt throw straight, no stat would get him into the team, but comparing two good throwers, Hore gets it every time. He is like another backrower.
Scottmit said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
The Daily Terror did a similar exercise using the Foxsport stats here:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25377347-5006067,00.html
Similar thoughts although they threw up Cameron Shepherd which makes sense – he has been the outstanding finisher since back from injury. They also selected Berrick Barnes at I/C.
They also had Ben Mowen at blind side because of his work rate and his lineouts but Mowen worries me because I’ve seen him butcher at least 2 tries in the past few weeks by not passing.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
sam, spot on. I personally find the stats interesting and helpful, but , would I STILL select Giteau if his stats were down, YES.
Having said that, The NSW State of Origin league team has been selected on subjective grounds, i.e. reputation for too long and it has failed. Players get old or just lose the fire!!! 4 series losses later they are finally going for young guys to turn the thing around….
So, you need a bit of both……………
Working Class Rugger said | May 4th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Stats won’t select the side. Form will. Stats don’t equal form.
Matt said | May 4th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Is this weighted over many games? As in cricket if you play one test and score 100, is that your average forever? The name that springs to mind is Salvi (who I admire as a player), but I’m not sure would rate as our second best no6. Having not started many games at 6, are his stats just from a few appearences?
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
who knows matt – although its interesting this is Leftie playing with his “army man’s” again.
Scottmit said | May 4th 2009 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
LAS said: “Chisholm, several seasons ago, when he was in the Wallabies, was a trojan around the field. tackling, winning lineouts, running, breaking the line etc. Now, he doesnt do as much of that. He rates at 23, way off the 27-30 of other locks. Deans told him last year to lift his work rate.”
My understanding is that Deans told Chisolm that he wasn’t doing enough in close and that he needed to stop grandstanding away from the breakdown. That he isn’t scoring as many tries now may actually be seen as a good thing by the powers-that-be because he now has his head down doing the work at the breakdown whereas before he was seen to be seagulling. The measuring system doesn’t actually count the breakdown work that doesn’t result in a turnover or a carry but still puts pressure on the opposition.
Ben C said | May 4th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
And see this is the problem, the way the statistics are set up. Why is a try assist given equal weight for a prop and for a five-eighth. Say a prop seagulls around and sets up two tries or scores two tries, he gets a disproprortionate boost over a prop whose nose nevers comes out of a tackle/breakdwon/scrum. You want the five-eighth to set up tries. And then tackling. It has a markdown for missed tackles. Does this include where a player ought to have made a tackle but didn’t even try? Pilfers are given a score. Does this include counter-rucking when a group of forwards blast the opposition backward and secure the ball? Who gets the points. The same number of points for a run devalues a long straight run compared to a short run or a crabbing, sideways run.
Kicking is the biggest problem. You get points for kicking goals. So if you are comparing, say, two five-eighths the one who kick goals will have a higher score which may not reflect his value, particularly if there is another goal kicker in the team. Also there is no value assigned to tactical kicking which is a crucial element of controlling field positioning. A fullback with a booming punt, say a Latham, (I am not using current players to avoid controversy) gets no recognition for an incredibly important contribution.
I think there are key inequities built into the statistics that won’t be averaged out by taking a large enough sample. Personally I think statistics play an important role but, to use the dreaded KPI, you need to assess different KPI’s for different positions.
Ben C said | May 4th 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Personally I am a big fan of the ’support’ statistic. Every time a player makes a break or puts up a kick, the players who actually chase the ball hard should be given a point. This is one of the most important things any player can do. Look how the Crusaders under Deans used to swamp teams by having player run in support from every angle.
mother teresa said | May 4th 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
BEN C,yeah you got it right strategy ,structure and coaching ,
use stats when undecided on structure,
performance can be only sane criteria.
stats can support any decision,back to space invaders las
AndyS said | May 4th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Should Wallaby selections be based primarily on statistics? I find it hard to say yes if it excludes Cam Shepherd when he is the top try-scorer for the competition…
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Andy, thats because Lefties stats and their application of points for each part of the game are applied to each player and position equally.
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Sorry sent to early…
Andy, thats because Lefties stats and their application of points for each part of the game are applied to each player and position equally. I guess they are applied the same to all wingers across the comp but the point is they are stats and dont take into consideration how a team plays or how any given player is used within their team.
Jameswm said | May 4th 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
No Mumm or Caldwell?
And Pek Cowan is solely a loose head – I dare say he hasn’t packed a single scrum at tight head this season, if ever.
Here’s your first test team
1 Benn Robinson
2 Stephen Moore
3 Al Baxter
4 Jimmy Horwill if fit
5 Not so Sharpe, though I’d have the dynamic Kimlin or Caldwell. We badly miss Vicks
6 Dean Mumm – and ditto for Rocky
7 George Smith
8 Cliffy Palu
9 Luke Burgess
10 Matt Giteau
11 Lote Tuqiri, though I’d have Turner
12 Berrick Barnes
13 Stirling Mortlock (c)
14 Digby Ioane
15 Mark Gerrard
16 TPN
17 Kepu – who else covers both sides, except Matt Dumpling who’s coming back from injury?
18 Richie Brown – good player
19 Pocock or Waugh, or else a reserve lock (Kimlin or Caldwell) for team balance
20 Sheehan, Genia or Holmes
21 and 22 – Two of James O’Connor, Peter Hynes and Ryan Cross, plus I guess whoever they don’t pick from Turner and Tuqiri
Working Class Rugger said | May 5th 2009 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Gerard shouldn’t be considered because he’s off overseas next year. Sorry to all Mortlock fans his forms haven’t warranteed selection. Pococok easily over Waugh even though I believe in combinations and the bulk of the test side pack should come from the Tahs. Genia over Sheehan and Holmes, Turner easily over Tuquiri and O’Connor. Mortlock replacement. Cross.
Sin-ick said | May 5th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
WCR,
I would replace Morlock with Ioane. He has been the form OC all year…….
LeftArmSpinner said | May 5th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
BP, if you are comparing players across positions, then I agree, it is very difficult, if not impossible to create and weight a set of stats.
However, this is not the case here. We are comparing Inside centres with Inside centres. They are compared by the same stats against the same teams. I accept that teams playing styles will influence stats. For example, the Tahs have run the ball less, have scored less points. Equally, they have had the opportunity to make more tackles.
BP “utterly useless”, Gee thanks. There is no human life at risk on this. It is simply a topic for discussion. Well, we have had 33 comments on the topic so it wasn’t Utterly Useless!!
WCG, stats are a component and one of the indicators of form. Ignore them at your peril, just as ignoring subjective matters is equally dangerous.
Matt, good point. Players need to reach a minimum of 100 points to qualify for selection. E.g. Ben Whitaker has the highest “score”58.3 but has only “earned” 7 points in the season as so is eliminated from selection.
Matta, I don’t get it. “Army Man’s?” What’s that?
Scottmit, I was referring to his overall performance as represented by stats. My memory is that he headed the stats for all players several seasons ago, but has not repeated it since. You cant do that just scoring tries. It is all about work rate, runs, tackles, pilfers, line out wins etc.
Ben C, you miss the point. If you are trying to select a prop, each prop has been compared by the same stats. The majority of their points come from Scrums, lineouts and tackles. The better ones then add runs to that and a few add a try or two. They are all valid activities for a prop, because a prop hangin’ in the back line won’t score very well on those stats. The seagull misses the opportunity for pilfers, tackles and in close runs. Forced Turnovers and pilfers cover counter rucking, I imagine…..
Andy S, try scoring is one thing. But, take Hynes, he has always done well in the stats. He has a high workrate and is involved everywhere. That’s what Deans likes and it makes sense. Everyone, including the try scorers, need to do their bit.
Matta, spot on and that’s where the subjective factors come in.
JamesWM, sorry for the mistake on tight head. Yep, that is likely to be the team. But, I would remove Tuqiri. Just not up to it, subjectively or objectively. Yep and mortlock is not up to it compared to Ioane.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 5th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Gentleman, Now lets here your subjective Wallabies, with or without the help of the stats……………..
Knives Out said | May 5th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
A European perspective:
1. Robinson 16. Alexander
2. Moore 17. TPN
3. Baxter
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe 18. Chapman
6. Mowen
7. Smith
8. Palu 19. Brown
9. Burgess 20. Genia
10. Giteau
11. Hynes
12. Barnes 22. AAC
13. Mortlock 23. Ioane
14. Turner
15. Shepherd
I feel the team needs a bit of urgency and also utility off the bench. Although Mortlock’s form hasn’t been overwhelming I would pick him to add experience to a youthful back division. The same applies to Sharpe up front. I believe that Shepherd is the most natural of the Australian full backs and deserves a run in the jersey. I’m also a fan of Kimlin, Hodgson and Pocock but have a number of reservations over a handful of Australian backs: Valentine, Sheehan, Cooper, Mitchell and Tuqiri.
BP said | May 5th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Sorry LAS I said the using this statistical measure is “utterly pointless” because the values have been subjectively assigned it is not an objective measure. Whilst it is great for a fantasy football it serves no role in analysing performance in real life.
“Remember, the stats are being used to compare players in the same positions. So lets not get into the argument of whether a tight head win is worth more than a line out or a try, etc.”
How does comparing players of the same position make arbitrary values okay. When comparing position by position the need for more role specific values of each stat becomes greater not less.
Even if that weren’t the case the system still needs to have some rigour around how we come to determine the values we are applying to each stat. In fact comparing players position by position makes the arbitrary nature of the stats far worse.
I’m someone who thinks statistical analysis can play a vital role, and that too many professional Australian sports teams over look the analysis out of ignorance, I would hope that if this is the only formula available to the wallabies they ignore it completely and instead spend their time doing some analysis to build an actual objective system.
stillmissit said | May 5th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
OK Guys
It appauls me but I am close to Knives Out – fancy agreeing with a European perspective! I have cut and pasted with my changes.
1. Robinson 16. Alexander
2. Moore 17. TPN
3. Baxter
4. Horwill
5. Caldwell
6. Higginbottom
7. Smith 18. Pocock
8. Palu 19. Brown
9. Burgess 20. Genia
10. Barnes
11. Hynes
12. Giteau 22. AAC
13. Mortlock 23. Ioane
14. Turner
15. Shepherd
I would leave Sharpe behind and move on. Barnes to 5/8 and Giteau to 12. Pocock on the bench to add some speed when Higginbottom has tired or Smith needs to come off. Keep Mortlock as we need his busts in the centres and experience but I think this is his last season, bring on Ioane in SH then Sheperd takes over kicking and Horwill captain. Shepherd is the standout fullback if only he could stay injury free.
I am assuming that all are fit and ready to go.
matta said | May 5th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Leftie – “playing with army man’s” = having some fun or making it up
Who Needs Melon said | May 5th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Jeez I virtually agree with KO too!
But I don’t think AAC has warranted a place. Hasn’t O’Connor?
5 and 6 are the numbers I think we are struggling with… which isn’t terribly surprising. I think both Higginbottom and Mowen are both potentially enormous liabilities. Ditto for Mumm. I’m just going to be a cat and not offer any suggestions other than we get Rocky back quick.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 5th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
BP, most players in the same position put in similar performances in the basics. i.e. locks win their own lineouts. they make a few tackles and maybe a few runs. The better ones simply do more. Sure the values are subjective, but consistent for everyone. Other fantasy comps have different points, that give more emphasis to the backs. Fox Sports seems to benefit the hookers and backrowers. But the point remains, when selecting a backrow, they are all on the same basis.
Here is a comparison of Thorn- 33 points and (Caldwell) 19 points, from last weekend. Your point would be valid if one of them was a goal kicker and one wasn’t. Forget the points, Thorn just did more and did it better.
Minutes Played 80 (80)
Tries 1 (0)
Runs 11 (3)
Tackles bust 2 (0)
Offloads 2 (0)
Linebreaks 1 (0)
Tackles made 9 (10)
Tackles missed 4 (0)
Long arm penalties 1 (0)
Errors 1 (0)
Lineout takes 4 (0)
Lineout steals 2 (2)
Knives, your team has approx 70% of the stats selected team if calculated on the 22 not the 30. I am with you. My team, combining stats and subjective criteria, is very similar to yours.
1. Robinson 16. Alexander
2. Moore 17. TPN
3. Baxter
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe 18. Hockings
6. Mumm
7. Smith 19. Pocock
8. Brown
9. Burgess 20. Genia
10. Giteau 21. Beale/Cooper/O’Connor
11. Hynes
12. Barnes 22. AAC/Mitchell
13. Ioane
14. Turner
15. Shepherd
Beale, O’Connor, Horne and Cooper are bracketed as an investment for the future and to blood them into the Deans way rather than on form.
But, they will all be away initially on the U21 world cup duty for the first few wallabies games of 2009.
Other than a bit more mongrel upfront and some more effective back play than was produced last year, this is a team/squad that I believe can challenge for RWC 2011.
As Borat would say: “I like”!
1. A good pack, if Baxter can stay fit.
2. Mobile backrow, particularly if Palu comes back to form and pressures Brown,
3. Attackers right across the backline in 9, 10, 13 and 11, 14 and 15, not to mention 20, 21 and 22.
4. and the brains/mgt of Barnes at 12.
I end up with 16 of the 30 stats selected players in my 22.
1. Pekahou Cowan: not a tighthead
2. Baxter: proven and tightheads and not much statistic difference between he and Shepherdson.
3. Mitch Chapman: not in 22
4. Matt Hodgson not in 22
5. Wycliff Palu out of form compared to last season
6. Scott Staniforth: unlucky, just like his whole career, but doesnt have Barnes kicking game. Also, not around for the next RWC.
7. Tom Carter: unproven at this level, and lacks pace of the players around him and is in a position where there are several players ahead of him who are more utility players.
8. Stirling Mortlock: His leadership is not that valuable and his time has come to go.
9. Drew Mitchell: almost made it, good as a utility.
10. Mark Gerrard: made a return to form this season, but doenst have the speed of others.
11. Mark McLinden: misses out because the bench must have utility players.
Bananas said | May 5th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
All bides well for the world cup year. We are one back and one forward away from a great side.
The search goes on for a “monster enforcer” so we keep looking… Rocky, Viks, Mr X ?
O’Connor is the linch pin in the backs. He is capable of covering every back including No.9 allowing an extra forward on the bench. My guess is he will reserve this year and start next year. Alexander, Pocock, Horne will potentialy join him.
This season my favoured fifteen would be:-
1 Robinson 2 Moore 3 Baxter
4 Horwill 5 Sharpe
6 Mumm 8 Brown 7 Smith
9 Burgess 10 Giteau
11 Shepherd 12 Barnes 13 Mortlock (c) 14 Ioane
15 Ashley-Cooper
The bench would be horses for courses.
16 Tah-Tah 4Nau
17 Alexander
18 Palu /Kimlin
19 Pocock / Waugh
20 O’Connor
21 Hynes / Turner / Tuqiri
22 Cross / Mitchell
For good measure, 4 goal kickers in the 15 and 4 on the bench
Think smart
Bananas
Ben C said | May 5th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
LAS
I still think the statistics are far too simplistic. Why should a prop only get one point for a scrum, same as a flanker. Flankers are important to scrums but they are the props bread and butter. I also stand by my comments about the run statistic and the ‘coarseness’ of the measure given metres are recorded. I think statistics are a useful tool (I have a background in mathematics so I wiuld think that). Your statistics are interesting and enlightening in some ways, but I feel far too simplistic to offer a real guide. I don’t necessarily mean that as a criticism as you are limited to the statistical data available. I am sure you don’t personally sit there with each match on replay to count the numebr of tackles, metres gained and so forth.
As for picking a team, I favour that chosen by KO with some minor changes. I would like to drop Mortlock and start preparing the next 13 for the RWC11 but, frankly, none of the alternatives have put their hand up. Even though Mortlock is not playing too well, he gets picked by default on the basis I would be working very hard (if I were coach) to get a replacement up to speed before the end of the year.
1. Robinson 16. Alexander
2. Moore 17. TPN
3. Baxter
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe 18. Mumm
6. Chapman
7. Smith
8. Palu 19. Brown
9. Burgess 20. Genia
10. Giteau
11. Ioane
12. Barnes 21. O’Connor
13. Mortlock
14. Turner 22. Hynes
15. Shepherd
I would shift Hynes to the bench for 11, 13, 14, 15 cover and bring in O’Connor for 10, 12, 15 cover. Mowen has played well but I would go for Mumm as lock/flanker cover and start Chapman.
stillmissit said | May 5th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Guys what is all this about Chapman? He is all over the pitch like a mad womans s–t and then drops the ball or tackles a player without one and gives away penalties. This guy has the porest eye hand co-ordination in S14.
If he wasnt so laughable I would be calling for his head. Thought it was good for the Reds when he headed south.
Amy91 said | May 5th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
I’d go with:
1. Ben Alexander
2. Stephen Moore
3. Al Baxter
4.James Horwill
5. Nathan Sharpe/ Peter Kimlin
6. Rocky Elsom- if he is avaliable- otherwise probably Chapman
7. George Smith/ David Pocock
8. Richard Brown/ George Smith (if they put Pocock at 7)
9. Luke Burgess/ Will Genia
10. Matt Giteau
11. Peter Hynes
12. James O’Connor/Berrick Barnes
13. Stirling Mortlock
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper
15. Drew Mitchell
But i think the selector’s will go:
1. Robinson
2. Moore
3. Baxter
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe
6. Elsom-again if they can get him
7. Smith
8. Brown/ Palu
9. Burgess
10.Giteau
11. Tuqiri
12. Barnes
13. Mortlock
14. Ashley-Cooper/ Hynes
15. Mitchell/ O’Connor (Deans seems to like him there)
16. Polota-Nau
17. Alexander
18. Brown/Palu
19. Pocock/Waugh
20. Genia/Valentine/Holmes
21. O’Connor/Cooper
22. Hynes/Mitchell/ Ashley-Cooper
Knives Out said | May 5th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
I’m genuinely offended. Whoever thought I was such an albatross (stifles a tear).
LeftArmSpinner said | May 5th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
ben C, not my stats. Talk to Rupert Murdoch if you have any complaints. The comparison of plkayers in different positions is not required when selecting a team. you only need to compare players vying for the same position, so they are valid, whether it be one point or a million. But, lets hear your team.
This is not meant to be a thread on stats, and the details of them. it is meant to be: here is the team selected on stats alone. how does it compare to a team selected completely subjectively or a team selected using both objective and subjective. You can offer your team and also vote on which method you recommend.
Knives, here we go again with another prop getting all feminine on us…….. “genuinely offended”. Now I dont get the Albatross comment……
Mungehead said | May 6th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Everybody is going to choose subjective over objective when your “objective” method is logically flawed!
Consider a hypothetical makeup of only two teams, where one team has the two strongest players in a particular position who are almost each other’s equal in ability and the other team has only a reasonable player in the same position but who is still streets ahead in ability over the next challenger.
The strongest two players get to share time on the field in team one because their coach understandably wants to make the best possible use of both of them. Meanwhile, the player in team two gets all the time on the field because there is no reasonable backup to step into his shoes.
Now assuming the first two players are very strong players but not quite twice as effective as the third player, your statistical analysis will rate the third player higher than the other two.
Extrapolating from there, you end up rating a lot of players from the poorer teams higher than their counterparts in teams that are spoiled for choice.
So you can ask whether we should choose a subjective or objective way of choosing the team and the logical answer would be objective… but only if there is a decent way to come up with an objective method. But when you start your article with a list which you claim is the list that you’ll get if you’re objective, based on faulty logic at best, unsurprisingly people are going to want Robbie to makes his selections subjectively when they (subjectively) see how poor the objective option is!
In short, your survey, and this whole article, is bollocks. Sorry about that.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 7th 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
Mungehead, What a good description of your post.
No. The raw stats have been adjusted, as stated in my previous comments!!!!!!!!, for the issue you raise by dividing their score by the number of minutes played. So, the best players are those that use their time on the field to do the most…..
The stats are from Fox sports. is that reliable enough for you or do you expect me to prepare my own set of stats?
There is nothing faulty about the logic. you just didn’t read the full article or subsequent posts explaining the point of the article, the stats behind it and the adjustments made to address issues such as you raise. but, if you cant bother to read it all, then dont tell us it is bollocks. People in glass houses…………
Mungehead said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner, I stand corrected. I did in fact read your comments about dividing by minutes played but somehow interpreted that as its opposite – that you were *multiplying* by minutes played. All in my head, I got the wrong end of the stick right from where you started the article with a comment about Robbie preferring players who play the full 80 minutes. Feel free to give me another bashing though, I can take it.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 8th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
No problems Mungehead, but you might want to get another nickname? Mungehead?? Anyway, its always interesting to see Objective v Subjective. I am sure that, like me, you have come back from a game, thinking that a certain player has had a blinder only to hear the consensus that another player was the true man of the match. Then the stats come out, and another player has scored higher than both.
Imagine the headaches for the selectors.
Sluggy said | May 11th 2009 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
LAS, very interesting analysis. Did you make allowance for down time due to injury? But maybe after using something similar to eliminate some players from the whiteboard hey’ll pick it mostly on form – which at the moment would be something like -
Robinson/Moore/Baxter
Kimlin/Horwill or Sharpe (???)
Smith/Brown/Mowen or Mumm
Genia
Giteau/O’Conner
Mortlock
Ioane/a winger who can tackle = Tuquiri or AAC – Hynes being injured
Shepherd (because Deans likes him there)
Barnes comes back from injury on the bench along with one of Mitchell/Turner and on form, Valentine or Sheehan ahead of Burgess. two forwards mentioned above, TPN, and the prop who you think should be there on form. Tahu and Pocock are numbers 24 and 25 in the squad.