Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Waylander]

Many posters here, including myself, place a high value on player statistics. How many times do we see stats rolled out as 'proof' of opinions on players form or value?

But what do these stats actually tell us?

When viewed in isolation, which is how they are usually presented, absolutely nothing. I was shocked when I went to the stats after Friday nights win. Such a comperehensive victory, such a dominant performance. Surely that would show up with some very impressive stats? Nope.

Last week a few posters were bemoaning the fact that none of our forwards managed to run for 100m against the Raiders. Just not good enough seemed to be the consensus. And yet what happened this week? We destroyed the Dogs, and I thought our forwards were excellent, yet 91m was the best of our forwards run metres (LOD & JWH). Neither Friend, Aubusson or SBW even made 50m. Moa (85m) and Cordner (61m) round out the starting pack. If not for the scoreline, you'd say we had a pretty crap game.

Last week, when our pack was "steamrolled", particularly in the second half, our starting pack made 392m, and thats with Cordner out for a lot of the game. This week, our starting pack made 367m, 25m LESS than against the Raiders. Our bench made a big difference to the total metres gained, but we had a lot more ball on Friday (149 runs v 123). In fact, we actually made more metres per run (8.63) against the Raiders than we did against the Dogs (8.42). But who here would have said that our forwards were sub-standard on Friday night? Not I.

Other stats of interests: We made 18 missed tackles (Dogs), 19 (Raiders). Linebreaks - 6 Dogs, 5 Raiders. Offloads - 7 Dogs, 10 Canberra.

So stats are all well and good, but to be of value, they have to show you a valid comparison. We beat the Dogs all over the park on Friday. The only stats that they beat us in were kick-return metres (cue the Mini bashing) and Off-loads. But not one of our forwards reached the 'acceptable' target of 100m.

Be wary of quoting stats. SBW made 7 runs for 47m on Friday, with no offloads and 2 missed tackles. Looked at in isolation, did he have a bad game? I don't think so !!

I'm as guilty as anyone at looking at stats and believing they prove a point. After sifting through last weeks and this weeks stats, I'll think long and hard before I do that again.

If your going to quote a stat, do it with the comparable stat that shows what it means, or the point your trying to make. Otherwise it's meaningless.

[Guest]

SBW missed a tackle..SACK HIM!!!

Chook.

[Guest]

SBW scored 119 in Supercoach, so the official statistics that are now on the records for the rest of time as we know it must absolutely, without question, be wrong..... right??

[Guest]

I dont look up their stats someone on here will always highlight the negatives. Occasionally someone highlights a positive.

No stat beats Anasta's 1 metre gain in 80 minutes.

[Guest]

Which website are you using for your stats?

[Waylander]

Which website are you using for your stats?

They were taken from the Match Statistics page for both games on NRL.com

[Spirit of 66]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the only stats that matter are penalties. Teams like Souths and Canberra do very well when they get a lopsided penalty count. We do very well if we are only a few penalties behind the opposition.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Come finals time (if we're there) we'll do OK. Souths aren't going to get 10-5 penalty counts in the finals and that's why they'll fail. (And because their defence is shit.)

[Burnt Rooster]

I don't need stats to tell me who went well, and who dogged it. If you know the game, you know what I mean, stats are just figures, which mean nothing at all, in the overall context of the game, for example, a player may make two try saving tackles, and the player next to him, may make 10 tackle assist tackles, what do you think was the important stat in that scenario.

[Rooster_6]

It's not uncommon for good team performances to yield low individual stats.

Hargreaves game is represented in the stats if you look closely enough.

9 runs for 91 metres, plus 4 offloads. 10 metres per run is very impressive and offloads are an underrated part of our game. He essentially ran for 13 runs, 130 metres + 4 offloads. These were all high quality offloads where he made good metres then offloaded, I'm not sure why Rugby League statisticians don't ever add on the meters made before offloading the ball. Don't forget 31 tackles for only 1 missed, that's very impressive.

SBW
5 tackles breaks, 2 linebreaks, 2 tries and 1 try Assist. That's a pretty exceptional game for a second rower.


Good team performances are usually represented in the team statistics;

80% completion rate compared to 66%
304 tackles, 19 missed, 0 linebreaks conceded
200 more metres than the opposition & 6 linebreaks.

Those are representative of a strong performance.

All the stats are there if you look close enough.

[Waylander]

I agree entirely 6. I was deliberatly selective in the stats I quoted, just to make the point. Looking at stats in isolation, like the old 'no forward made 100m, that's hopeless', just doesn't work. You have to look at the whole picture, what stats the opposition had, and the big unmeasurable - the QUALITY of the work.

30 tackles as 3rd man in looks good on the stats sheet, but it's no where near as good 20 one-on-one tackles. Offloads is another deceiving stat. A ball popped out the back to a bloke that gets creamed, with no gain in yardage, counts the same as an SBW one-hander around the corner to a flying support player. Stats only tell part of the story, even when you actually look at all of them together.

[Guest]

I dont look up their stats someone on here will always highlight the negatives. Occasionally someone highlights a positive.

No stat beats Anasta's 1 metre gain in 80 minutes.

How about Anasta's 0 metre gain in eighty minutes?

[Rooster_6]

I agree entirely 6. I was deliberatly selective in the stats I quoted, just to make the point. Looking at stats in isolation, like the old 'no forward made 100m, that's hopeless', just doesn't work. You have to look at the whole picture, what stats the opposition had, and the big unmeasurable - the QUALITY of the work.

30 tackles as 3rd man in looks good on the stats sheet, but it's no where near as good 20 one-on-one tackles. Offloads is another deceiving stat. A ball popped out the back to a bloke that gets creamed, with no gain in yardage, counts the same as an SBW one-hander around the corner to a flying support player. Stats only tell part of the story, even when you actually look at all of them together.

Statistics are like loose women, once you get them down you can do whatever you like with them.

[The Brain]

we are compensating attack with great defence.Then mostly we must be winning in the errors department and capitalising on them

[stephenj]

i look at % possession and the penalty count then i start swearing!

[Guest]

I remember Webke and Joel Clinton talking on the footy show years back.
Clinton was talking about how Webke laughed at him for looking at the stats from the previous week while in the kangaroo camp together.
It was along the lines of you can have 15 hit ups for 100m,2 errors,20+ tackles and 2 missed tackles and think you had a good game but if both your errors were when your coming off your own end of the field or trying to push a pass and both your missed tackles led to 2 try's then all of a sudden they don't look so good.
I don't read stats that much because they are miss leading in a lot of ways. Like someone said earlier watching the game you can see who is playing well and doing there job on the field.