[2015 Six Nations] Wales vs England (Round 1)

[martinspoonboy1]

depends if you take minutes played into account... (this is purely anecdotal) but if burrells minutes played are a lot more than others then he % will naturally come down lower - as will where he is defending in the line, and the defensive system they use (i.e. are those missed tackles having a positive outcomes).

Looking at a players % and saying poor defender isn't accurate enough.

- - - Updated - - -



who are above them?

Agreed to a certain extent but I bet that percentage is low in comparison to all centres at international level. Still a worry regardless.

 

[Josht36]

depends if you take minutes played into account... (this is purely anecdotal) but if burrells minutes played are a lot more than others then he % will naturally come down lower - as will where he is defending in the line, and the defensive system they use (i.e. are those missed tackles having a positive outcomes).

Looking at a players % and saying poor defender isn't accurate enough.

- - - Updated - - -



who are above them?

- - - Updated - - -



not even remotely... Eastmond 5 tests, Burrell 7. of course his % will be down additionally Burrell and JJ defended at 13, all the others at 12.... it's a false comparison.

I was referring to the club percentages. I agree its a flawed way of looking at who is a good defender because you need to consider things like rush defence etc but less than 70% doesn't look great however you look at it.

 

[goodNumber10]

I was referring to the club percentages. I agree its a flawed way of looking at who is a good defender because you need to consider things like rush defence etc but less than 70% doesn't look great however you look at it.

no of course it doesn't but then Hodgsons premiership stats were better than Wilkinson as a goal kicker but who was the better goal kicker at international?

It's easy to spin stats, there has to be a much bigger context presented to define someone performance.

Just my opinion mind...

 

[ratsapprentice]

who are above them?

Saracens and Quins.

i'd actually agree with that, i just reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hate peopel waving stats around as though they are definitive proof (i know that's not what you are doing mate)

Then what's your point?

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think the big thing is how the Bath backs can't seem to shake this reputation as being bad tacklers. Ford, Joseph and Eastmond all have reputations as defensive liabilities yet consistantly show that is not the case.

I think it's just assumed that quick, inventive backs can't defend, and big powerful ones (Burrell, Tuilagi) necessarily can. It's a stereotype hard-wired into the English rugby psyche

 

[goodNumber10]

Then what's your point?

no specific point other than stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Sure, but equally it's fair enough to exclaim at the (let's not kid ourselves, very) low tackle percentage stat that a player you already deem to be shaky in defense has.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

no of course it doesn't but then Hodgsons premiership stats were better than Wilkinson as a goal kicker but who was the better goal kicker at international?

It's easy to spin stats, there has to be a much bigger context presented to define someone performance.

Just my opinion mind...

Agreed but it's difficult to say that 1/3rd missed tackles at club level regardless of context is acceptable. Non?

 

[goodNumber10]

Agreed but it's difficult to say that 1/3rd missed tackles at club level regardless of context is acceptable. Non?

first impression would be no, it's not acceptable.

further unpacking those stats to analysis where, when, who, the context of those tackles in their role etc... would paint a better picture of the individuals performance though.

 

[Every Time Ref]

that there was a sudden knee jerk reaction in this thread that is pretty much along the lines of "I KNEW IT" and that annoys me, as there is always a bigger context behind defensive analysis.

Speaking for myself, I responded with "I knew it" because the stats backed up my observation. I hadn't seen the stats before, I'm not a big one for stats (mainly because I don't know how to use them ... I agree with you about context), but based on observation I had Burrell down as a bad defender, so when he stats backed it up I didn't question it - of course he has bad stats, he's a bad defender. If the stats had contradicted my observation, that's when if have felt the need to think about context a bit more deeply.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

first impression would be no, it's not acceptable.

further unpacking those stats to analysis where, when, who, the context of those tackles in their role etc... would paint a better picture of the individuals performance though.

Agreed.

 

[goodNumber10]

Sure, but equally it's fair enough to exclaim at the (let's not kid ourselves, very) low tackle percentage stat that a player you already deem to be shaky in defense has.

i guess so, i just think there is more to analysis than stats (for obvious reasons).

have you seen moneyball?

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking for myself, I responded with "I knew it" because the stats backed up my observation. I hadn't seen the stats before, I'm not a big one for stats (mainly because I don't know how to use them ... I agree with you about context), but based on observation I had Burrell down as a bad defender, so when he stats backed it up I didn't question it - of course he has bad stats, he's a bad defender. If the stats had contradicted my observation, that's when if have felt the need to think about context a bit more deeply.

and that is completely fair enough...i'm not saying LB is or isn't a good defender, i'm just saying those stats aren't the best comparison.

they compare two 13's against three 12's with different games time and against different opposition and so on.... stats are no subsitute for the human eye, they can assist it but you've still got to make that final decision yourself.

 

[TheSaffycen]

70% is very low. If I am not mistaken don't saints use a drift defence ? Also watching a few games he gets really unstuck by quick feet. Against Roberts and Davies that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[goodNumber10]

this is a good read about statistics in rugby (covers both pro's and cons):

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ysis-sport-use-of-statistics?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[Every Time Ref]

Understood. Also I haven't seen Moneyball but I have read the book - I assume you're referring to the stats which were unthinkingly used as performance indicators for decades, but turned out to be more or less irrelevant to a player's effectiveness when examined in detail?

 

[goodNumber10]

Understood. Also I haven't seen Moneyball but I have read the book - I assume you're referring to the stats which were unthinkingly used as performance indicators for decades, but turned out to be more or less irrelevant to a player's effectiveness when examined in detail?

pretty much... haven't read the book (read excerpts), keep meaning too... is it good?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

As with most of these things they have to be taken in the context of where they happen.... stats are only one very small part of the analysis process. looking at anyones missed tackles stats and saying "what a rubbish defender" is very naieve.



the bath backs don't have a reputation for being poor defenders, they have a reputation for being light in weight.

Some of those Ford, Eastmond and JJ tackles have been try saving and Baths defence is hardly the sort that sits back and lets Eastmond, Ford and JJ make simple tackles against standing players to boost their stats. Will Ford and Eastmond drive a player back in a tackle? Probably not. But they WILL stop them which is the first goal of a tackle. I've seen Burrells tackling recently and there have been no special circumstances, he has simply ****ed up the tackle badly and done things like get angry at it rather than get up straight away and try again. Bath and Saints have not operated vastly different defensive patterns and Burrells stats are much worse. This isn't missing but someone else making the tackle, this is missing and the result being a half or full break. Burrell is far more of a liability than any of the Bath players yet Ford, Eastmond and JJ are the ones with the reputations. It is completely undeserved and stinks of might makes right. If a smaller player does well, it is ignored because they are small, that means OBVIOUSLY they can't tackle. They can tackle successfully forever and still have their size levelled against them. It's actually incredibly narrow minded and very much following the Welsh mentality of going for ever bigger players because bigger is always better. Nearly all of Baths failures and struggles have been when Eastmond has been missing for example but that is ignored because he is deemed too small and a defensive liability. Where is the evidence?

 

[goodNumber10]

Some of those Ford, Eastmond and JJ tackles have been try saving and Baths defence is hardly the sort that sits back and lets Eastmond, Ford and JJ make simple tackles against standing players to boost their stats. Will Ford and Eastmond drive a player back in a tackle? Probably not. But they WILL stop them which is the first goal of a tackle. I've seen Burrells tackling recently and there have been no special circumstances, he has simply ****ed up the tackle badly and done things like get angry at it rather than get up straight away and try again. Bath and Saints have not operated vastly different defensive patterns and Burrells stats are much worse. This isn't missing but someone else making the tackle, this is missing and the result being a half or full break. Burrell is far more of a liability than any of the Bath players yet Ford, Eastmond and JJ are the ones with the reputations. It is completely undeserved and stinks of might makes right. If a smaller player does well, it is ignored because they are small, that means OBVIOUSLY they can't tackle. They can tackle successfully forever and still have their size levelled against them. It's actually incredibly narrow minded and very much following the Welsh mentality of going for ever bigger players because bigger is always better. Nearly all of Baths failures and struggles have been when Eastmond has been missing for example but that is ignored because he is deemed too small and a defensive liability. Where is the evidence?

a cover tackle is not the same as stopping someone on the gain line, stopping someone 5 metres behind the gain line is not the same as knocking someone backwards - stats are the start you have to put them into context.

Look, lets be clear here i'm not saying Eastmond is a poor defender, i've always said his tackling is solid and consistent in the context of bath. But i've always said he cedes ground at the gain line which is important to understand. it works for Bath because Louw is a ground player who gets over those chopped tackles - England don't play that way.

On the Burrell point maybe you're right, maybe your not... the point is the stats up there seem to me at least to be wrong in that they aren't fair comparisons of equal situations.

 

[Willodell100]

To my mind stats can be useful but certainly not the be all and end all.

Personally I put more emphasis on the structure and shape of a team's defence rather than on the individuals that make it up. Yes it's important to be able to tackle but I think it's more important to have the energy and willing to get back up and into the defensive line (to help the collective good) than whether you can smash an opposition player back 2 metres.

In reality most attacking players that are driven back tend to happen when they are double tackled by two players which, for me, puts more emphasis on the team system rather than the individual.

Therefore as long as they have the excellent work-rate (different to fitness) and can tackle effectively enough then I would be happy to slot then into the defensive system being used. England seem to have had an excellent defensive system in place for a quite a long period of time. I don't particularly like Andy Farrell but I have to doth my hat to him for putting this in place.

 

[Peat]

If I ever write forum bingo for this place, Eastmond's defence and stats are definitely going on the card.