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.

Imagine the headaches for the selectors.

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…………

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.

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……

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

If he wasnt so laughable I would be calling for his head. Thought it was good for the Reds when he headed south.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

I would replace Morlock with Ioane. He has been the form OC all year…….

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

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.

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.

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.