The Roar
The Roar

Andrew Ferguson

Expert

Joined June 2019

26.2k

Views

15

Published

33

Comments

Andrew Ferguson is a rugby league statistician, author, historian and podcaster, and one of the co-owners of Rugby League Project.

Published

Comments

The turnaround stats is not meant to be margins.

It’s points conceded in a loss plus points scored in a win

Sharks conceded 74 v Parrammatta
Sharks scored 54 v Souths
74+54 = 128

The NRL semi finals: The statistical truth

This is a brilliant comment and raises a very pertinent issue that is always overlooked. It’s crazy to think it wasn’t even factored in during the 1998 reviews.

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

I manipulated nothing. I said clearly (and so does the title) that this analysis is done using the same system the NRL used for on-field criteria back in 1998.

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

Couldn’t find the full criteria and some of what I did find relied on data I couldn’t obtain. Finances being included would see Penrith improve and I dare say Melbourne drop down a few spots. Sponsorship money would be fairly similar for most of the clubs.

Would love to have that data and run it all again.

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

It’s based on the on-field criteria that the NRL used in 1998.

If I had my own formula it would be vastly more wide-reaching, wouldn’t give any credence to Away Crowds whatsoever, and would look at Memberships, junior clubs, financial might, venue suitability among others,

As was mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the 1998 criteria was garbage and sort of designed to cull the clubs they wanted to be rid of anyway.

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

Yep!

The system the NRL used at the time to gauge on-field success was woeful (as this article clearly shows)

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

These were part of the absurd criteria that the game used in 1998 to help them determine which clubs should be cut by 2000.

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

It was the 16 highest crowds, irrespective of venues (except Magic Weekend and Double Headers – which were not included).

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

Agree about the original criteria. It was flimsy and nowhere near thorough enough

By 1998's standards, which NRL teams should face the axe today?

The Wests Tigers were a tight knit side from 2006-2010.

Made the finals once.

In the end, it’s the coaches job to get players focussed and performing. It’s the coaches job to adapt to changing situations and prepare his side accordingly.

If De Belin got injured pre season, there’s no way we’d see the same sooking about his omission. Blaming the De Belin incident is nothing more than a thinly veiled swipe at the NRL stand down system.

It’s blame shifting.

If De Belin was injured, McGregor as a coach would have adjusted accordingly. But we’re being lead to believe that didn’t happen here. That’s on McGregor’s head and not the De Belin saga.

The Dragons won't fix their woes until they have a new coach

After losing their opening 2 games, Manly spent the rest of the season in the top 8, despite Dylan Walker’s off-season saga.

Cronulla lost their coach in the late off-season and are in the top 8.

Both teams have lesser squads than the Dragons and the Sharks also had a rookie coach in his debut season.

You can bet your bottom dollar that I don’t buy that whole De Belin saga as an excuse. How does that make you tackle less effectively? Run less often? Hold the ball less capably?

It is simply absurd. On the field, there are few Dragons players that you could say were absolutely rubbish. But you can look at their attack and see clearly that they were so one dimensional that scoring points or sustaining pressure was a near impossibility,

The Dragons won't fix their woes until they have a new coach

Oh okay. I got no idea about that mate. Sorry.

I can handle constructive criticism, in fact, I quite enjoy it, as it leads to decent discussion.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

The analysis is not useless.

It has been used in conjunction with each clubs record to show how each team performs in each quarter of the table.

You can discredit any statistical analysis in any area of life with all sorts of variables, variables which cannot be factored for or accounted for, variables which cannot be treated equally with other variables.

So in the end, one can only analyse the raw data available. I intentionally write these articles with no commentary or opinion so that the reader can draw their own.

If you are intent on not seeing any value in this article, then you never will. I can’t convince you otherwise, nor will I try. That’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it and I respect it (even if I disagree with it)

Thanks for the feedback and constructive criticism though mate.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

There is a flaw in your theory though.

Every club has breached the cap to varying degrees, more than once since the NRL era began in 1998.

How is one supposed to determine how much of a win is made with a legally assembled side, or a side that is deemed legal, but has benefitted supremely from the cap cheating of the past?

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

Your only other comment on this article is “…go sydney”

I’m open to discussion mate, share your opinion.

Bear in mind, this is statistical analysis what I’ve written, not opinion.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

Doesn’t matter what we think about the team names mate, they are what they are and Easts are now known as Sydney.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

That finals series wasn’t MY prediction.

That was how the finals will work out if percentages are a guide.

I have added no commentary or predictions to this.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

Yes, I do know this. This is not a commentary on that. It is about the success of teams in various ladder positions.

Just how important is ladder position, anyway?

I think we could probably look at say 20 minute games as tie-breakers

Here's how we can break the NRL ladder

At least fields were something that required some measure of Rugby League playing ability.

Coin tossing doesn’t.

Here's how we can break the NRL ladder

These stats are for the 152 games played so far in 2019 (Round 1 til the end of Round 20)

To win in the NRL, just score first - however you do it

Odd scores have an immensely high win rate since 1983, when the other scoring options (tries and goals) were both made even numbers (tries went from 3 points to 4, goals have always been 2 points)

In the 75 years prior to that, it was just as easy to produce an even score as an odd one.

The search for rugby league's magic number

An opportunity is here to learn about detecting CTE while the patient is still alive and then work can commence on finding some form of remedy.

It’s not fake news.

NRL's Head Injury Assessments don't go far enough

Beer drinking impacts the brain in a different region to CTE. Current players have great trainers who ensure dehydration is avoided.

The problem isn’t imaginery. It is very real.

NRL's Head Injury Assessments don't go far enough

I agree that’s a dynasty.

Souths 20 Premierships is not a dynasty.

That’s their history. That’s what I was referring to.

How well does the Melbourne Storm dynasty stack up in NRL history?