A Wallabies squad based on Super 14 stats
Roar Guru By LeftArmSpinner, 4 May 2009 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Brumbies, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs, Western Force
Related coverage
- Western Force news
- ACT Brumbies news
- NSW Waratahs news
- Queensland Reds news
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
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:
[poll id="58"]
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Brumbies, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs, Western Force
May 4th 2009 @ 12:20pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:08pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:09pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:17pm
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
sorry leftie – this is a joke right?
May 4th 2009 @ 1:28pm
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
May 4th 2009 @ 1:36pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:37pm
matta said | May 4th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
haha..Leftie you made this up yourself though right?
May 4th 2009 @ 1:37pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:42pm
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.
May 4th 2009 @ 1:52pm
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……………