Here are my player ratings from Round 4 of Super Rugby. Submit your own, keeping the figures for mediocre scores aside for reasons of brevity and so that the focus is on the best and worst performers.
Scores should be between anyone rating more than seven and anyone below four – so just for very good and poor performances. Half scores are allowed, so 7.5, 3.5 and so on.
Please submit your own scores for a whole team. The minimum is one team, there is no obligation to score all the games. I average the scores per team by the number submitted.
I will compile everyone’s submitted team scores and produce Wallaby form teams later in the week. There will be one team of the round and three accumulative teams.
Brumbies-Force
The Brumbies very clinically dissected the Force, who have a similar game plan to the Brumbies but lack the personnel.
The main difference was the class of the Brumbies outside backs. The forwards gave the Brumbies the platform and the backs made very good use of it. The intensity of the Brumbies dropped once they scored four tries.
Christian Lealiifano was excellent as the playmaker despite being at 12. The only disappointment was Matt Toomua, who made a lot of mistakes. Toomua missed tackles, kicked poorly, and his passing was only average.
For the Force Nick Cummins made a good return but received few opportunities. Chris Alcock was their best player, making vital tackles, stripping the ball in tackles, and he was very effective at the breakdown.
Brumbies
S. Sio 7.5/10
S. Moore 7.5/10
B. Alexander 7.5/10
R. Arnold 8/10
I. Vaea 7.5/10
N. White 8/10
M. Toomua 3.5/10
H. Speight 7.5/10
C. Lealiifano 8.5/10
T. Kuridrani 7.5/10
J. Tomane 8/10
R. Coleman 7.5/10
Force
C. Alcock 8/10
N. Cummins 7.5/10
L. Morahan 7.5/10
Reds–Waratahs
The Reds were dreadful, almost as poor as in their first round against the Brumbies. What has improved is their defence.
The game had a lot of errors by both teams and the referee. The Tahs created enough opportunities to score six more tries but their handling let them down. The Tahs were dominant in every area except the lineout, which Dave Dennis ran poorly.
The Tahs defence was incredible, they smashed the Reds 5-10 metres behind the gain time and again, until the Reds started standing deeper and deeper to avoid the punishment. The Tahs took away all the time from the Reds so it made it seem like they had no game plan.
Reds
J. Slipper 3/10
S. Fainga’a 3/10
S. Talakai 3/10
J. Schatz 3.5/10
N. Frisby 3/10
W. Genia 7.5/10
L. Turner 7.5/10
C. Feauai-Sautia 3.5/10
Waratahs
B.Robinson 7.5/10
S.Kepu 7.5/10
W. Skelton 8/10
D. Dennis 7.5/10
M. Hooper 8/10
W. Palu 7.5/10
N. Phipps 3.5/10
B. Foley 8.5/10
M. Carraro 7.5/10
P. Betham 8.5/10
I. Folau 8/10
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mitch - So despite my proven minimal comments on other peoples ratings , now you issue is I am blunt? Or do you still hold to your proven incorrect belief that I dispute / comment on many of other people's ratings (outside clarification of names and rules) ? There is a difference between an opinion and fabrication ie negative / condescending comments on EVERYONES individual ratings. I have proven it is by far the exception. Anyway if that is the level of your objectivity and rationality I am happy if you do not contribute.
Rugby Fixation
Roar Guru
I left my ratings, glad to see you left them unnoticed for the point of this argument. I'm aware that other people are commenting, but they aren't the ones tallying scores and being as blunt as you are in responses. So don't have a go at me over "inconvenient facts" when this whole article and my point is completey opinionative.
ethan
Guest
QLDer, I agree. Hooper had a superb game. I think some people have a bias against him based on last years slightly underwhelming WBs performances, which is a shame, because the purpose of this is to judge people on how they went in the round that was played.
ethan
Guest
People with biased agendas kill the whole purpose of these rating systems. I do not think Peter is being unreasonable at all. There are times where some of us will disagree with the ratings of a player or two, but mostly there are similarities. When one person comes in with something completely different for many players, questions must be asked.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mitch - You are aware there are more comments on peoples ratings by people other than me. Read below how INACCURATE Stivens actually was on his jibe at me. Or are inconvenient facts to be ignored.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Sam Stivens - I take great exception to your characterisation that I tell people they are wrong. I double checked all the rounds of ratings. Looking only at where people have submitted actualy ratings for a team and not banter or general discussion. Round 4 - I questioned your ratings, and got the name of a players wrong on another for which I apologised Round 3 - NONE. There was a clarification of a players name and on rules Round 2- I questioned a player who played 13 mins turns out he had the wrong player, I questioned another who played 17 mins and confirmed that person. When players get ratings for playing a small amount of time it is reasonable to be sure they have the correct player. Round 1 - NONE. I clarified the rules since it was the first time and people submitted ineligible players and scores not in the correct range Of course it may be you are in fact exaggerating and taking exception / being sensitive on being asked about your ratings. Obviously I need to ask nicer with a please and saying it seems incongruous to other peoples scores, and game results and if you would not mind providing how you determined those scores, if that would be ok by you.
Graeme
Guest
They are probably not meant to be completely serious but giving MH a 1/10 just says that you have an agenda and don't want reality to get in the way of it.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mitch - Please do not exaggerate so much. Lets break it down on people who supplied ratings James WM - No comment Ethan - Noted ineligible player as per rules, also I made a mistake on misreading the player, I apologised Hello - No comment Mitch - No comment Stivo - ONE PERSON I questioned how they got there So instead of everyones comments 3 had NO COMMENTS 1 was a clarifcation and an error on my part acknowledged and yes 1 I questioned Otherwise it was banter on general comments NOT on specific ratings Seems you may be like Jay with an agenda. If so I am happy if you do not participate or at lest substantiate such comments
Mitch
Guest
Hallelujah! What an accurate and necessary comment, was getting sick of seeing the negative/condescending responses posted on everyone's individual player ratings.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Outside of eligibility ie foreign players like Thompson and Mafi I have not questioned others. Potgeiter is ineligble for the tahs. There was Ethans on 1 player which was my mistake I misread who it was. I have a duty of checking outliers. If I did not all people could award 10/10 for everyone in their team and 1/10 for everyone they don't like. All the other peoples are similar, yours is distinctly different. No mine is not based on stats. I form an opinion based on watching the game and then I follow up and see if stats align with it. Otherwise 1 big moment but otherwise a nothing game gets marked too high. If the reds forwards were so bad ie below subbies you still rated Hooper as worse than all of them ie the worst forward on the field whilst others rated him high. This is an example that needs checking. So in your mind hooper made the most mistakes in key moments? Also the least positive contributions? Imagine unvetted contributions by people like FOS!
Sam Stivens
Roar Rookie
Sorry PeterK. Just to quote you at the top of your article; "Here are my player ratings from Round 4 of Super Rugby. Submit your own, keeping the figures for mediocre scores aside for reasons of brevity and so that the focus is on the best and worst performers. Scores should be between anyone rating more than seven and anyone below four – so just for very good and poor performances. Half scores are allowed, so 7.5, 3.5 and so on. Please submit your own scores for a whole team. The minimum is one team, there is no obligation to score all the games. I average the scores per team by the number submitted. I will compile everyone’s submitted team scores and produce Wallaby form teams later in the week. There will be one team of the round and three accumulative teams." Was the point of you asking for people to submit their opinions, so that you could tell them they are wrong for having a different opinion to yours? Because that's exactly what you have tended to do each week (especially this week). If you don't want people's opinions, then don't ask for them, and then call these thread's PeterK's Wallaby team, not the ROAR's. But to Justify, in my OPINION, yes I think Genia is starting to get back to good form. I thought he played very well with a forward pack going backwards and a 10 who was standing so far back it was although he was playing full back. He kicked well, his positional play in defense was great and overall played very well I thought. On the 4 Tah's forwards... the reds were woeful... terrible... they would have been beaten up by first grade subbies forward pack, so the tah's should have trounced them! They constantly dropped the ball in contact, the line out did not function and the only positive I saw was the scrum. Therefore the 2 props got good scores, the one operating the line out got a poor one, the guy who is as big as a mountain but had the impact of a mole hill got a poor score and the back row that should have had a field day got marked down. Who was ineligible? And yeah I thought McCalman had another really strong game. He and Mafi were the only forwards that stood up in an otherwise absent pack. He was a work horse as usual and his cover defense saved at least 2 tries that I remember. Whilst he did not make a lot of the runs in the 2nd half when the Force came back into it, he was constantly the first guy to the ruck securing possession and his impact/effectiveness at the tackle/ruck was outstanding, so yeah I thought he had a good game. My opinions are based on watching the game and what I see and players who make a bit impact when it counts, i.e. earning a turnover when defending 5m out and under pressure is worth more than 4 on half way. It seems that your analysis is based on numbers looking at a spreadsheet... If that were the way selections were made, one R. Mccaw would not have made the AB's squad last year, but I remember him being quite influential in a couple of Bledisloe's.
WAYNE
Guest
ITA VAEA that bloke is a beast!! hits hard, runs hard, workrate is good ..he is a moral for WALLBY GOLD this year...I`m a REDS man through and through but he has to be there,as well as STIRZAKER if he keeps his form going..Not convinced with Timani or Arnold yet ..I said yet .. But i do like Rorys workrate and at 208 CM im pretty sure we cant lose a lineout if hes in the team ...
WAYNE
Guest
I would have scored SCHATZ AND CFS 2 points
Mike
Guest
My last could come across the wrong way, so here is a correction: Rory Arnold was cited for biting, red-carded and then banned. However, his appeal was completely successful and he was restored. This South African blogger is very critical of the red card: http://www.rugbybanter.com/?p=2879. He argues that if the TMO had looked at more than one camera angle, he would have seen that Arnold had been placed in an illegal neck lock and there was no intention to bite. Obviously the judiciary agreed. The blogger says that the tackler should have been cited for illegal play.
Mike
Guest
He's played in South Africa. Apparently he bit a Cheetah, which is only fair when you think about it.
Mitch
Guest
Lealifano - 7.5 Moore - 7.5 Sio - 7.5 Tomane - 8 Cummins - 7.5 Alcock - 7.5 Holmes - 3.5 Genia - 7.5 Gill - 7.5 Frisby - 3 Turner - 3.5 Schatz - 3.5 Robinson - 7.5 Dennis - 7.5 Hooper - 7.5 Beale - 8.5 Foley 7.5 Betham - 7.5
hello
Guest
Yes he did and it still surprises me after last year. I thought that he covered the ground well in this game and played faster then he did in the first though
PeterK
Roar Guru
if no points are awarded they have an average game ie between 4 and 7 so are ignored in effect.
PeterK
Roar Guru
skelton played 80 mins in round 1.
PeterK
Roar Guru
so genia was the best player between tahs and reds. Hard to take seriously. 4 tahs forwards got low scores and 1 ineligible despite them playing better and the same as red forwards with low scores McCalamn best player between force and brumbies, seriously? turn it up