The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
T
TOCC
Guest
In isolation maybe, but when correlated with other statistics like line out success it becomes a more relevant measure of a players line-out ability..
Line-out success:
Reds: 91.6%(2nd in Super Rugby)
Rebels: 87.9%(7th)
Brumbies: 87.7%(9th)
Force: 83.8%(15th)
Tahs: 83.5%(16th)
When you boil it down though, the differences are very small. Let's say you average 10 line out throws of your own each match then the difference from having one of the best lineouts in the comp and one of the worst is probably one lost throw extra each match.
Sword of Justice
Vay Wilson (31)
That is not insignificant.
If you look at lineout success, the 8 teams currently sitting in finals spots are ranked:
1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 17.
The difference between 1 and 17 is only 10% of total lineout success.
That's not much correlation between lineout success and team success.
If you looked at offloads for example, the 8 teams in finals spots are ranked:
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12.
The gap in numbers here is substantially larger and there's a whole lot greater correlation with competition ranking.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
ITKs at Box Hill suggesting Chieka has invited Sefa to train with the Wallabies in anticipation of his eligibility in October.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Rather than 1 every game it's probably most games - no difference and then in one game - lose 4 extra.
Makes a big difference if you're, say, in a semi final......
Sword of Justice
Vay Wilson (31)
Test match rugby is for the most party significantly more focused on the set piece than Super Rugby. Especially against England. This is a thread for the Wallabies, specifically discussing who should be in the team versus England.
Offloading is often a consequence of being on the front foot/ having support runners in space, which when done in great numbers is a consequence of dominating the game - so it's not really possible to show that offloading could cause winning, rather - being better causes winning. You're example is a classic case of why the first five minutes of any introductory stat class is always 'correlation does not equal causation'.
Sword of Justice
Vay Wilson (31)
Absolutely. B&I Lions game two they lose one line out 10 metres away from our try line in the last couple of minutes - look for all money to score if they were to get it but they don't and we win the game.
T
TOCC
Guest
RWC GF the Wallabies lost up to 4 line outs..
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
The phrase "lost up to 4 lineouts" is a bit of a red card when arguing one's statistical credentials. A bit like "the victim died up to once" would be for a paramedic.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Our lineout fell to bits in the final and it cost us a few opportunities on attack. You can't do that against the All Blacks because you'll be punished. It had been pretty solid up until that point.
Sword of Justice
Vay Wilson (31)
A few years ago on this blog statistics were posted either on the front page or in a forum on what platform lead to the most successful outcome (i.e. what was the net yardage or result off the next phase from a scrum/lineout/ruck) and iirc the line out was the most effective platform to play from. It may have been how likely a team was to score off each platform.
I'd love to see the statistics from the world cup. I felt that the set piece had never been more important than last years internationals.
I'd love to see the statistics from the world cup. I felt that the set piece had never been more important than last years internationals.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Winning the lineout might give you the greatest net yardage off the next play, and thus be the most important attacking platform, but losing the battle of the scrum or breakdown can cost you the game, even if you're the better team in every other way. This is especially so when we face England, who often beat us, and when they do, they do so by dominating one of those two aspects of the game.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I'd go along with that Groucho. England have dusted us at the breakdown before, usually by throwing copious big bodies in there, and taken the chocolates. As bad as the scrum was in 2007, Lewis Moody and co. in the ruck area was worse.
Sword of Justice
Vay Wilson (31)
Of course, looking at our props, locks and back rowers though I'd say we are looking menacing at the breakdown and should be confident in holding our own at the very least in the scrums for this series.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Interesting stats. I wonder what the effect of the multiple changes at Hooker have had on the Tahs. Similarly for the Force. Very Surprised by the Brumbies comparative lack of success with the stability they have had and the Wallaby Captain throwing.
Also would be interesting to see the stats further broken down to reflect where the throws went to, I mean if a team throws 90% of their ball to 1 or 2 it doesn't mean much if they win 99% of their throws, this needs to be considered along with who is calling. That is assuming that these numbers are attacking stats?
Without question. Impossible to read from those overall stats though how often a meltdown happens and whether it happens any more frequently in the team with slightly lower lineout success percentage than one that doesn't.
That was why I used the word correlation a couple of times and compared the correlation between team success and a couple of statistical categories.
I never said it was the cause of the success.
Raw stats are pretty hard to work with because they don't explain much of the story at all. All lineout successes are obviously not created equal. It would be interesting to know a percentage of "messy" lineout wins where you retain possession but don't get clean ball and also tries and line breaks from lineout wins to see who is using their first phase ball the best.