The Super 14 stats don't lie or do they?

Yep - very aware of the schedule, reckon the Boks have it toughest this year but if they can get one win then they will be away

I'd wait until after this years series Rusty the Boks face the All Blacks twice at home this year oppossed to last year playing them once and only winning by 3 points

Any person using stats should be 'extremely careful' with deleting data as the results can be skewed and may give an incorrect result. This is not just in regards to these stats but any stats.

It might be right about McCaw - Crusaders lost 2 times to the Bulls and the AB's 3 times to the Boks last year plus 2 more Crusaders losses to the Bulls this year and I don't think he missed any of those matches. Carter only played in the 3rd loss to the Boks in Hamilton last year though, so that'd only be 3 for him.

Jerry, I am 100% not sure about it :) Got it off Keo.co.za's Twitter. What a twit then eh!

Are you sure about that Ben? Carter didn't play S14 last year remember and was also out of the first few TN tests (he didn't play in either of the tests in SA). What are the 7 matches?

Here is another interesting stat: Richie McCaw and Dan Carter have, in the last year, lost 7 consecutive games against teams that featured Matfield, du Preez and Steyn.

The only stats i be concerned with is how many bum on seats and how many people watch it on there tv set.

the tipping point - its got to start somewhere :) but you cant deny the Boks are getting better at playing the ABs home and away. That mental block which we never had against the Wallabies or any other team for that matter is gone. sure its still a long way off until the overall balance is restored but we are making steps in the right direction.

He's also taking away the worst performing New Zealand team,Seiran,or am I mistaking here.Would you rather have him take away the top teams?The reason he's taking away 1 team from SA and NZ is there is a notion that with 5 vs 4 teams the quality gets diluted a bit. It's just a simple theory and he's playing around with figures,don't know why he should be 'extremely careful'.

Well done Nathan, although there is no real basis for taking the lowest team away from the NZ and SA numbers to make it four teams each. As a stats nerd you should know that you should be extremely careful with removing data from a data set and there is no reason to remove these teams except of course to boost the SA points as your taking away their worst performing team which is going to give the Sa teams an unjustified boost.

It's only really evened up with the 3 wins last year though Rusty. Before that, the AB's had won 7 out of their last 10 against the Boks. The Boks improved against the AB's from 04-08, but they were still well on the minus side of the ledger till last year.

PK, Of course the Lions, & to a lesser extent the Cheetahs, gave a lot of free hits away, reducing the effectiveness of the Bulls, Stormers & Sharks. Just goes to show how stats can be viewed in so many different ways.....

thanks for the credit in a round about way but at least from a South African point of view its true. We went through a patch from 1999 to 2004 where we couldnt buy a win against a NZ side. It was a source of national pride to beat the old enemy, the trendsetters of global rugby. It became our singular goal and Im sure gave our national setup nightmares on how to get the monkey off our backs. Our whole game plan and setups were changed/enhanced to combat the NZ way. To put it in perspective in this period our sucess ratio against the ABs was 16.7% while we had near 50% against the Wallabies. The ABs and Wallabies also shared a 50% ratio between them so basically to at least even the ledger we needed to get better at playing the ABs and that we did. From 2005 onwards the ledger is almost even between the Boks and ABs and the Boks and Wallabies. The amazing thing is the ABs stepping out to 84.6% against the Wallabies. So clearly the Boks have got better at dealing with the ABs, the AB's better against the Wallabies and the Wallabies about evens with the Boks.

Thats not a bad squad Daryl although not sure about Chisolm as he has had several chances and never really taken them. If Van Humphries was eligible? I would select him on form and as a roughie even Samo if he was tuned up fitness wise. A ball carrier like him is nigh unstoppable and I really believe having more abrasive runners like him, Palu when fit, Polata Nou, Higginbotham and Elsom would bruise any defensive line and I think that is what we need to complete the Wallaby picture, got the pack and the backs with the loosies the only questionable area. Like Sharpes selection, played well this year and may get to 2011?

are you high? that team is average, and mentioning carter makes me think it is a joke post. giteau has to start at inside, higginbotham is bench at best with rocky coming into the starting line up (considering he is the national captain), berrick barnes on the bench instead of chambers, and as mortlock has retired (as much as i like him i think he would struggle to make the team anyway), it has to be possibly aac to outside and either o connor or hynes to fullback. id also put chisolm on the bench instead of van humphries 1. Robinson 2. Poloto-Nau 3. Alexander 4. Horwill 5. Sharpe 6. Elsom 7. Pocock 8. Palau 9. Genia 10 Cooper 11 Hynes 12 giteau 13 AAC 14 Ioane 15. O connor 16. Daley 17. Barnes 18. Beale 19. Chisolm 20. Valentine 21. Moore 22. Hodgson

I must admit that the Carter thing was without much thought, but unfortunately I don't know who else except perhaps Cross or Faingia. I forgot about Rocky. Perhaps put him in with Higginbottom on the bench and then drop VH. There may be some depth now, but not many would be selected in a World XV so it is not as good a situation as we might like to think. It comes down to Deans to convert them into a world beating team.

If only the national teams had to be made up of average players we would be laughing. Unfortunately the South Africans selectors might just pick most players from the Bulls and Stormers rather than picking even numbers from each province. :-)

Did you mean to leave Elsom out completely?

Some dubious selections there but you have lost all credibility by mentioning Carter. The guy isnt up to S14 standard.