Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Historically, why isn't England better?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="die_mole" data-source="post: 1064072" data-attributes="member: 73648"><p>So this idea of England being better is something I have heard quite frequently so I decided to do some investigating. Using pickkandgo's database England has the second best win percentage and the second best point differential in the professional era. They were second to New Zealand in each category and that should be expected, they are consistently the most dominant I was going to do some regression analysis including all the proper Rugby playing nations but since statguru has been taking off the web there wasn't enough available data. I did some regression stuff with the Tier 1 nations but as there are only ten nations it isn't really robust. If I don't have anything going on at work tomorrow I <em>might</em> try to scrape data on all nations. I used soccernomics hypothesis that the predictor of success is matches played, population, and gap per capita. I replaced population with registered senior men's players because rugby is not the game of the people and only used matches played against other tier one nations prior to the professional era. Keep in mind this is back of the napkin stuff.</p><p></p><p>Basically Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa have all overachieved in the professional era. New Zealand the most so, Australia just barely. Ireland is the only Northern hemisphere nation that performs above expectations in point differential while underachieving in winning percentage. England and Wales are together neck and neck for just under achieving, with Wales slightly closer to expectations.</p><p></p><p>So yeah, England does underachieve a little bit. But what would them being a little better look bit? Winning 40% of the six nations instead of 33%? <s>They've won two World Cups (which are are decided by highly random knock out finals)</s> [Not Correct], what do you want, five?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="die_mole, post: 1064072, member: 73648"] So this idea of England being better is something I have heard quite frequently so I decided to do some investigating. Using pickkandgo's database England has the second best win percentage and the second best point differential in the professional era. They were second to New Zealand in each category and that should be expected, they are consistently the most dominant I was going to do some regression analysis including all the proper Rugby playing nations but since statguru has been taking off the web there wasn't enough available data. I did some regression stuff with the Tier 1 nations but as there are only ten nations it isn't really robust. If I don't have anything going on at work tomorrow I [I]might[/I] try to scrape data on all nations. I used soccernomics hypothesis that the predictor of success is matches played, population, and gap per capita. I replaced population with registered senior men's players because rugby is not the game of the people and only used matches played against other tier one nations prior to the professional era. Keep in mind this is back of the napkin stuff. Basically Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa have all overachieved in the professional era. New Zealand the most so, Australia just barely. Ireland is the only Northern hemisphere nation that performs above expectations in point differential while underachieving in winning percentage. England and Wales are together neck and neck for just under achieving, with Wales slightly closer to expectations. So yeah, England does underachieve a little bit. But what would them being a little better look bit? Winning 40% of the six nations instead of 33%? [S]They've won two World Cups (which are are decided by highly random knock out finals)[/S] [Not Correct], what do you want, five? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Historically, why isn't England better?
Top