If you’ve seen my posts on this site, it will be obvious to you that I find the statistics of rugby interesting. Whilst they are interesting, attempts to justify selections based on statistics is, in my opinion, wrong (can’t say what I really think or I’ll have to ban myself). I see so many problems with the use of statistics in this thread.
The first problem with using statistics is the accuracy of the information between the various sources. For example, Moses used statistics from Fox showing Fainga'a missed 28 tackles in the season whereas Sports Data and Rugby Stats both show Fainga'a missed 21 tackles. The Fox statistics quoted show Carter missed 14 tackles; Sports Data showed he only missed 9 whereas Rugby Stats shows he missed 13. Which numbers are more accurate? I don’t know but there are differences in just about every statistic used in this thread dependent on which source you use.
The second problem is which statistic is more important. Take attack for example where Moses used tries, try assists and tackle busts as a basis to say Carter is a better attacker than Tapuai. However, if you look at number of carries per line break, Carter made 104 carries for 11 line breaks (a line break every 9.5 carries or every 115 minutes he played) whereas Tapuai made 63 carries for 8 line breaks (a line break every 7.9 carries or every 85 minutes he played). You could argue that Tapaui is therefore the more penetrative attacker and that line breaks are more valuable than tackle busts. Different people will value these statistics differently but no one measure is the absolute way to measure performance.
The third problem with using statistics to justify who’s the better player is that comparing a player in one team to a player in another team ignores the way each team plays and therefore what a player is asked to do in a team. Tom Carter obviously plays the crash ball role and takes the ball into the teeth of the defence so is likely to be less effective in making line breaks compared to carries as against Tapaui who doesn’t play the same role for the Reds. How many tackles #12 is required to make is dependent on how the opposition plays.
The fourth problem is comparing a centre predominantly playing #12 against one predominantly playing #13. The roles are very different and are played differently by teams.
The fifth problem I see is that I doubt any high level coach selects on the basis of statistics. If that was the case, Rob Horne’s 83% tackle accuracy in the Super Rugby games he played last year should have ruled him out of contention for the Wallabies.
If you were picking a crash ball #12 with good defence for the Wallabies based on statistics alone you would have gone with Pat McCabe over Tom Carter anyway. McCabe played 1,078 minutes compared to Carter’s 1,270 in the season. McCabe averaged 11.95 metres gained every time he carried the ball in Super Rugby compared to 8.05 metres per carry for Carter and McCabe only missed 5 tackles all season compared to 9 for Carter. McCabe also made 22 line breaks, double the 11 made by Carter. (Source: Sports Data)
A coach will be aware of statistics but will make their selection based on their game plan and who best suits that game plan. If I were making the selections at #12 and #13 for the Wallabies from the players mentioned, it would be Tapaui at #12 and Horne at #13 for me (regardless of what statistics may say). If I had to select backups for Tapaui, it would be McCabe, then Fainga'a. Tom Carter would be number four on that list in my opinion – he’s a good player but I think the other choices offer more than he does.
Having said that, James O’Connor hasn’t been mentioned and would go to the top of the list for me at #12, so Carter would be number five in my opinion.
I doubt he’ll ever be picked to play for the Wallabies and I’m sure no top team will ever be picked on the basis of statistics.
