Australian Super Rugby Team of the Week 2023

[cyclopath]

I am happy to stfu about others selections if that's the agreed way to go, but here's an idea out of left field that could be worthwhile in getting rid of bias, intended or otherwise.

Why not have a rule where fans of teams cannot include players from that team? May not be possible if all posters' preferences aren't known.

That makes no sense, I'm sorry.

 

[Misunderstood fan]

I am happy to stfu about others selections if that's the agreed way to go, but here's an idea out of left field that could be worthwhile in getting rid of bias, intended or otherwise.

Why not have a rule where fans of teams cannot include players from that team? May not be possible if all posters' preferences aren't known.

That won’t work. I picked 2 Reds. Hardly bias. The other factor to consider it that some will have a complete knowledge of how to rate a position and others won’t. Some have software to show work rates, successes and failure points. Selection is in the eye of the beholder. I saw the social media selection and suspected the selection process lacked some critical assessment. It’s a forum.

 

[KOB1987]

I agree, although BR has a point…

I looked after this thing last year (and the year prior) and while you see some patterns in people’s voting, there was certainly a majority fan base of one team that dominated the votes which resulted in some problems:

- petty parochialism - last years MVP receiving surprisingly few nominations (one or two for the year) the last couple of years by usually reasonable contributors, in stark contrast to overall votes

- one player being unanimously nominated by the fans of four other teams in one round, and still missing out

- the contributions drying up completely as said team’s form dipped and the thread eventually dying a pitiful death.

For this thread to work it needs plenty of contributions from a broad cross section of the board.

Unfortunately you can’t stop people from being completely parochial in their votes, but it’s best for everyone’s mental health reading this thread that they submit their team and politely shut the fuck up regarding other people’s choices without wanting to come off like a complete hypocrite… and it will be so much easier for whoever is compiling it.

I’m confused as to how this can happen - doesn’t unanimously mean that everyone voted for him?

Anyway, I’m in the ‘vote, comment on your own selections if you wish, and then let other people do the same’ camp. There might be some occasional bias if there’s no standout in a particular position but I’m sure it would be the exception not the rule.

 

[Slim 293]

I’m confused as to how this can happen - doesn’t unanimously mean that everyone voted for him?

Not if the contributors from the fifth team make up just over half the voting bloc…

 

[Members Section]

I know he only spent 35 min on the park but I thought Slipper was flawless out there

 

[RugbyReg]

I agree, although BR has a point…

I looked after this thing last year (and the year prior) and while you see some patterns in people’s voting, there was certainly a majority fan base of one team that dominated the votes which resulted in some problems:

- petty parochialism - last years MVP receiving surprisingly few nominations (one or two for the year) the last couple of years by usually reasonable contributors, in stark contrast to overall votes

- one player being unanimously nominated by the fans of four other teams in one round, and still missing out

- the contributions drying up completely as said team’s form dipped and the thread eventually dying a pitiful death.

For this thread to work it needs plenty of contributions from a broad cross section of the board.

Unfortunately you can’t stop people from being completely parochial in their votes, but it’s best for everyone’s mental health reading this thread that they submit their team and politely shut the fuck up regarding other people’s choices without wanting to come off like a complete hypocrite… and it will be so much easier for whoever is compiling it.

its the same as the GAGR Test Player of the Year votes. There are very obvious biases there and often by those complaining here.

There is one funny very occasional poster, a very pro Manly man, who only votes when Michael Hooper does well. Votes him 3 points and randoms 2 and 1 and then disappears when Mick doesn't play or doesn't shine as bright as usual.

Let's not get too precious about it though.

Basic rules:

- no commentary (there's plenty of bickering elsewhere)
- must watch all Aussie games to contribute
- only Aussie eligible players (thus no Thrush, Hardwick etc etc)

 

[brokendown]

That won’t work. I picked 2 Reds. Hardly bias. The other factor to consider it that some will have a complete knowledge of how to rate a position and others won’t. Some have software to show work rates, successes and failure points. Selection is in the eye of the beholder. I saw the social media selection and suspected the selection process lacked some critical assessment. It’s a forum.

how about just assess what the average punter sees,after all you dont need a statstician to tell us who won,the score board tell us this-games are not won purely on stats

 

[fatprop]

I know he only spent 35 min on the park but I thought Slipper was flawless out there

Always an interesting point, a prop/hooker/lock will usually play 45'ish minutes starting or 35 off the bench, is that 10 minutes difference that critical to judge the best player?

 

[dru]

Always an interesting point, a prop/hooker/lock will usually play 45'ish minutes starting or 35 off the bench, is that 10 minutes difference that critical to judge the best player?

I don't think it is. In fact any player coming from the bench with 30min aught be in consideration - if they were good enough.

 

[fatprop]

I don't think it is. In fact any player coming from the bench with 30min aught be in consideration - if they were good enough.

Yep, "if" say Nandalo comes on and score 4 tries in 15 minutes, he may deserve a spot

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it depends on the position. If you play 30 minutes or less in a position where most of the competitors are playing 80 then you're going to have to be pretty phenomenal to be the best player in that position for the week.

If it's a prop or hooker and most starters are playing 50-60 minutes then it becomes a lot easier to be the best player with only 25-30 minutes on the field.

Ultimately people can do what they want though. It's unlikely that a random vote for someone who has a good cameo off the bench is going to end up winning that week.

Obviously this is designed to provide a consensus selection.

 

[Adam84]

but it’s best for everyone’s mental health reading this thread that they submit their team and politely shut the fuck up regarding other people’s choices without wanting to come off like a complete hypocrite…

agreed

 

[Wilson]

1 Tom Lambert (Waratahs)
2 John Ulugia (Brumbies)
3 Allan Ala'alatoa (Brumbies)
4 Nick Frost (Brumbies)
5 Jeremy Williams (Force)
6 Rob Valetini (Brumbies)
7 Fraiser McReight (Reds)
8 Harry Wilson (Reds)
9 Ryan Lonergan (Brumbies)
10 Carter Gordon (Rebels)
11 Corey Toole (Brumbies)
12 Hamish Stewart (Force)
13 Len Ikitau (Brumbies)
14 Max Jorgensen (Waratahs)
15 Tom Wright (Brumbies)

 

[Lightblue]

I don't think this was really Edmed's fault. He was covering the outside player and Taleni Seu should have been on Wright (and had him covered) but was too slow to react.

Edmed switched once it was clear Seu wasn't going to make the tackle and got palmed off.

But yes, Wright was excellent on that play and created the try.

Edmed missed at least 3 tackles that led to tries. For a defensive 10… ordinary.

 

[Lightblue]

Hegarty was the best 10 in first round .. sorry Carter Gordon fans. You must be all caught up in his flowing golden locks!

 

[dru]

Edmed missed at least 3 tackles that led to tries. For a defensive 10… ordinary.

The stats have Edmed with 7 tackles and 2 misses. This should probably be discussed in the match thread.

 

[Lightblue]

The stats have Edmed with 7 tackles and 2 misses. This should probably be discussed in the match thread.

Fair enough Dru but he missed 3 … uncharacteristic but stats are wrong.

 

[dru]

Fair enough Dru but he missed 3 … uncharacteristic but stats are wrong.

Something's wrong, Lightblue, but maybe mate, let's see how things go a little longer than round 1?

Brumbies scored 3 tries and you imply that Edmed was primarily responsible in D for all 3. Suggesting that bar Edmed, Waratahs were a 3 try to none better team on the day. You absolutely sure that there is no hyperbole here? Just a touch?

 

[Braveheart81]

Edmed missed at least 3 tackles that led to tries. For a defensive 10… ordinary.

I'd love you to pinpoint them for me.

As I said, I think the first try is mostly on Taleni Seu. He just didn't cover Wright and while Edmed did miss his attempted tackle on Wright it was never his man to begin with so he wasn't in a good position to make the tackle.

I agree on the second try that he got beaten by Ikitau. He gave him too much space and Ikitau managing to draw in the winger as well was crucial to making the break.

In the Brumbies third try I don't think he was involved at all defending the move that resulted in the Muirhead offload and Toole try so he didn't do anything wrong there.

So yeah, I'll put a defensive error by Edmed as being relevant to one of the Brumbies three tries.

 

[RugbyReg]

How did we end up tie breaking votes last year? I have one position with equal votes?