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

[Every Time Ref]

Eh?

Any particular reason... given that both are just about as strong as any of their competitors defensively, if not, more so.

Missed this the first time. Agree with rats, I'd put both of them as top or top equal defenders among their competitors for their respective positions.

Bit pointless as the game is on Friday not Thursday.

That's how bad Twelvetrees is. He's actually talking about him making dinner with his girlfriend at home.

 

[ratsapprentice]

:lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

Loving the positivity in here.....

 

[Peat]

Joseph-Nowell are very strong defenders in their positions, but as a 12-13 combo, both would be out of position. Personally, avoiding seeing that is the biggest reason I can see for having a 12 on the bench.

As for Croft -

He's been back playing for the last two months; this isn't a rush-back scenario like 2013. If we rule out players for not stringing together 6 games more or prior to international return, we will struggle to get a team out at times. People are letting his nightmare 2 years colour their perceptions here.

He carries well. He's not an ice breaker carrier like Vunipola, but he regularly makes lots of ground when slightly wider, like Morgan. He rucks well. Go look up the Ruck Mark series on Demented Mole (and while you're there, have a look at Corbisiero's numbers for next time people assume he only scrums). Notice the very easy comparison with Lydiate. He works hard - he made 1/6th of his side's tackles against Ulster, give or take - if you want him to work closer to the coalface than Johnson did, he's actually rather effective. As for having our best lineout jumper on the bench along with Tom Youngs' "Will he, won't he" act being a luxury, well, that's a really interesting definition.

Hopefully he doesn't have one of those games where the coach tells him to stick by the tramlines and we might be one step closer to sanity...

 

[ratsapprentice]

Joseph-Nowell are very strong defenders in their positions, but as a 12-13 combo, both would be out of position. Personally, avoiding seeing that is the biggest reason I can see for having a 12 on the bench.

Hadn't realised that was what he was talking about, I thought he meant as a 13, 11/14 combo.

 

[goodNumber10]

Joseph-Nowell are very strong defenders in their positions, but as a 12-13 combo, both would be out of position. Personally, avoiding seeing that is the biggest reason I can see for having a 12 on the bench.

that makes sense, i thought he meant JJ 13, Nowell 14, not as a 12/13.

 

[Peat]

Maybe, but given the context - "I trust Joseph as an 11/14 more than I trust him as a 12" - I think it's pretty obvious he's talking about them being a potential centre partnership, which they would be if Nowell was 23 instead of Twelvetrees.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

:lol:

Burrell's missed tackle percentage is appalling. Quite concerning. Any particular reason for this?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

:lol:

Remember kids, Eastmond and Joseph have terrible defensive weaknesses but Burrell is fine. That's actually really poor by Burrell. He is big but also reasonably fast. People couldn't get around him or over with him theoretically so it must be he is simply bad at tackling. Having seen his last 2 games, it is quite shocking.

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.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Burrell's missed tackle percentage is appalling. Quite concerning. Any particular reason for this?

He's not a very good defender, it's a long standing issue that is punctuated by some really poor recent performances for Saints.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

He's not a very good defender, it's a long standing issue that is punctuated by some really poor recent performances for Saints.

If Eastmond was fit, do you think Lanc would have gone for the Bath duo just for some consistency?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Remember kids, Eastmond and Joseph have terrible defensive weaknesses but Burrell is fine.

Do you not remember the massive amounts of fuss kicked up about his defence this time last year?
It quietened down because he had a good Six Nations, but there were huge concerns about it.

 

[goodNumber10]

Burrell's missed tackle percentage is appalling. Quite concerning. Any particular reason for this?

It's not presented in it's proper context of where, when and what kind of tackles were missed (I.E. the effect they had on the games they were made in) which are extremely important to a defensive analysis.
@ratsapprentice out of curiosity it'd be good to know minutes timeplayed as well if you can pull it together

 

[martinspoonboy1]

Do you not remember the massive amounts of fuss kicked up about his defence this time last year?
It quietened down because he had a good Six Nations, but there were huge concerns about it.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of those tackles were missed in the 2014 6N and which were in the autumn/summer cos even for england 77 percent isnt good enough

 

[goodNumber10]

Remember kids, Eastmond and Joseph have terrible defensive weaknesses but Burrell is fine. That's actually really poor by Burrell. He is big but also reasonably fast. People couldn't get around him or over with him theoretically so it must be he is simply bad at tackling. Having seen his last 2 games, it is quite shocking.

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.

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.

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

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's not presented in it's proper context of where, when and what kind of tackles were missed (I.E. the effect they had on the games they were made in) which are extremely important to a defensive analysis.
@ratsapprentice out of curiosity it'd be good to know minutes timeplayed as well if you can pull it together

Not my stats... got them from: https://twitter.com/rpetty80

69% is very, very low... unless you have Baldrick as a coach it's too low.

From watching him I'd tend to say he's someone that either has perfectly acceptable (i.e. not outstanding) defense or he completely falls apart.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

It's not presented in it's proper context of where, when and what kind of tackles were missed (I.E. the effect they had on the games they were made in) which are extremely important to a defensive analysis.
@ratsapprentice out of curiosity it'd be good to know minutes timeplayed as well if you can pull it together

True, context is important, but the percentage difference is still massive

 

[Josht36]

Those Burrell tackle stats have got me a lot more worried for Friday. I knew it was a weakness but didn't realise his percentage was so low. Just looking at the stats make Eastmond look Lydiatesque in comparison.

 

[ratsapprentice]

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

That is brought up in the context of defence the vast majority of the time, and as with missed tackle stats, you have to look at the net result.
Does the extra yardage they lose in the tackle really cause Bath an inordinate problem? Not really - they have the third fewest tries conceded in the premiership.

 

[goodNumber10]

True, context is important, but the percentage difference is still massive

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 - - -

That is brought up in the context of defence the vast majority of the time, and as with missed tackle stats, you have to look at the net result.
Does the extra yardage they lose in the tackle really cause Bath inordinate problems? Not really - they have the third fewest tries conceded in the premiership.

who are above them?

- - - Updated - - -

Those Burrell tackle stats have got me a lot more worried for Friday. I knew it was a weakness but didn't realise his percentage was so low. Just looking at the stats make Eastmond look Lydiatesque in comparison.

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.

69% is very, very low... unless you have Baldrick as a coach it's too low.

Depends, if the majority of those tackles are missed in a 70 point chuck around against Treviso they have no real bearing on his defensive ability in reality and in the context of a big defensive game. (I don't know that they are, i'm just presenting a context to show stats aren't everyting)

From watching him I'd tend to say he's someone that either has perfectly acceptable (i.e. not outstanding) defense or he completely falls apart.

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)