Ireland v Italy Chicago November 3rd

troyzer

Christy42 wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

That said, a 'moneyball' team in my opinion is a team that can perform well in a league environment where consistency is key and where the decisions derived from spreadsheets have enough fixtures to play out beneficially. Teams like this sometimes fall short when it comes to knock out stages.

Exeter are a moneyball team to my mind.

I mean, that's the point right? The Oakland A's didn't actually win anything they just played really well in the regular season.

Whether or not Ireland can win knockout games remains to be seen, but beating England in Twickenham to win a grand slam was a good indication.

No the Oakland As were simply players who were undervalued in the market at the time. Nothing to do with the team being better than the sum of their parts. The players were just more effective than anyone thought they were.

They would have had no issue with knock outs. Their issue was that while the team was undervalued it was no where near as good as the top teams of the time with far larger budgets. In the end they were a 1 million dollar team getting paid off a 100k budget and ran into 2 million dollar teams (figures for example). As other teams adjusted their valuations it could never work long term without more cash.

Not sure it applies to us.

You can only really moneyball in baseball and maybe ice hockey because of how long the season is. There are over 160 games in a baseball season meaning that statistics actually work because averages mean something over so many data points.

It's also why the As haven't won the World series, because anything can happen in a given 5 game ALDS.

The window closed when everyone else realised that this was the way to go. Whereas before, a $30m player like A-Rod was paid on the back of bull****, now the same $30m player is paid on the back of replicable statistics.

Source: I am a massive baseball nerd.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

You said if Kearney had started instead of Larmour, then you didn’t see Leinster losing that game. So, yes it absolutely can be interpreted that you are putting the blame on Larmour’s shoulders there, and you have doubled down on it.

You're interpreting what I didn't say rather than taking what I said at face value.

That's your mistake and a result of your biases.

There were a lot of issues with the Leinster performance that day. What you say may be true, but it could also be true for other positions. If we played JGP instead of McGrath, if Leavy was available, if we didn’t lose JvdF etc.

Yes, and?

Why did you ignore where I said

"We lost to Toulouse for several reasons (and several players having uncharacteristically poor games) and it was very much Leinster's game to lose."

So you’ve gone from ‘has a few lapses in defence’ to ‘a liability defensively’ in one post, which is it?

Oh look, now you're selectively quoting me to try twist what I said into what you want me to have said.

Larmour is fine defensively. Like Kearney, Conway or whoever your having at full-back, he has his moments. Positioning at full-back might be a better description of where he’s coming up short at the moment, which is absolutely fine but it doesn’t equate into a bad defender.

He has more moments than other first-team players (whether Leinster or Ireland). He also scores more tries than most. The second statement doesn't somehow negate the former, as you seem to think it does.

He is a world class attacker at times, he is poor-average defensively compared to other first-team at Leinster and Ireland and needs to improve.

See now you’re moving the goalposts twice here. You didn’t say he’s been in average form compared to those around him for Ireland. Nor did you say he was in average form compared to the hype around him.

You just said he’s been average and it all seems to be based on one game against Toulouse. Could it be argued that others have played better than him? Of course, but it doesn’t mean Larmour has been average.

I didn't move the goalposts, you're being incredibly dishonest and almost verging on lying now.

You clearly aren't interested in a discussion because you've made your mind up what my point is before even trying to understand it and even when I clarify and expand upon it, you just simply ignore that.

Alternatively, I could say all of Ireland’s back three players have been average, and base it all on the performances of James Lowe. I’d be wrong, just like you are here.

That's just moronic. Where have I based three players performance on one players performance?


You're very busy accusing me of saying what I haven't said, rather than actually replying to what I have said.

I'd suggest you invest less of yourself in an individual rugby player, it might help avoid derailing threads when someone politely disagrees with you.


Larmour is a great prospect. He isn't quite there yet, largely due to to his defensive abilities. There are multiple posters here saying similar things about his defensive lapses, and plenty of pundits have commented on his defense over the last year. Yet you insist on unpleasantly trying to twist my argument into being far more extreme than it is.

I'm allowed to disagree on a player without having you trying to twist everything I say, selectively quote me, and verge on lying about what I've argued.

Cheers and choose someone else to be unpleasant to in future!

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

It would be absolutely awesome if you're right. We have three top quality locks already and for a fourth guy to come in and just blow past Henderson and Toner would be incredible.

I just don't know what people are basing this on though?

Eye catching moments. It's something we're all guilty of to some degree or other. A player with big moments in games will generally stand out more than a guy who delivers the nuts and bolts stuff consistently for 80 minutes. I often find you need to watch a game back at least once before you can really gauge performances. If Beirne makes a line break, wins a couple of good turnovers and gets a try he'll seem much better than Toner, if Toner tidied up rucks, ran some good decoy lines and shored up the scrum etc. It can be very hard to compare two very different performances like that too.

AdamD

Has there ever been a young back that boards haven't immediately decided is a poor defender? Genuinely curious. Just seems like the go to drawback to immediately put on a young player

Dubinusa

I would argue that Larmour is better than average defensively. He's not a top level defender yet. I think Conway is slightly better in defense, but that is experience.
Carberry looked great at fb and I think it's his best position and furthermore, I think Larmour is better defensively than JC at fb.
If Larmour gets the run out against the pumas, we'll have better insight to gauge his positioning and capabilities at fb.

irishbucsfan

It’s not the schools at all. It’s the bloody Naas mafia! Jameses Heaslip and Tracy are running Irish rugby with an iron fist. All out of Hayden’s in Naas. And not only that they’re now looking to expand their control to Britain through Geordan Murphy. It’s absolutely sickening. I’m glad we have sharp eyes on the issue thanks to people like Heymans, I for one will oppose the Naas World Order with every ounce of my being. Beirne and Byrne must be burned.

Squidgy Black

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It’s not the schools at all. It’s the bloody Naas mafia! Jameses Heaslip and Tracy are running Irish rugby with an iron fist. All out of Hayden’s in Naas. And not only that they’re now looking to expand their control to Britain through Geordan Murphy. It’s absolutely sickening. I’m glad we have sharp eyes on the issue thanks to people like Heymans, I for one will oppose the Naas World Order with every ounce of my being. Beirne and Byrne must be burned.

I heard Tracy is kidnapping players and bringing them out to his barbers in Naas and threatening to give them a poor fade. Rob Kearney isn't even physically injured, he's just trying to recover from a dodgy skin fade.

sydthebeat

AdamD wrote: »

Has there ever been a young back that boards haven't immediately decided is a poor defender? Genuinely curious. Just seems like the go to drawback to immediately put on a young player

gary ringrose

Clegg

AdamD wrote: »

Has there ever been a young back that boards haven't immediately decided is a poor defender? Genuinely curious.

RoG

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

You're interpreting what I didn't say rather than taking what I said at face value.

That's your mistake and a result of your biases.

What biases? You singled out Larmour and said you didn’t see Leinster losing if Kearney played instead of him, and then followed that up by acknowledging that it wasn’t just Larmour’s performance when I pulled you up on it.

Admit you worded that initial post pretty poorly and we can all move on.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh look, now you're selectively quoting me to try twist what I said into what you want me to have said.

You mean you didn’t change from ‘lapses in defence’ to ‘a liability defensively’ and I must have imagined that?

Larmour has more than enough credit in the bank as a defender. Saying he has some lapses would be quite fair but so do Stockdale and Kearney in particular. It doesn’t make any of them, especially Kearney, defensive liabilities.

Deleted User wrote: »

He has more moments than other first-team players (whether Leinster or Ireland). He also scores more tries than most. The second statement doesn't somehow negate the former, as you seem to think it does.

He is a world class attacker at times, he is poor-average defensively compared to other first-team at Leinster and Ireland and needs to improve.

You going to back that up with any facts or are you just going to talk about one game?

That’s all you’ve done here. You’ve made sweeping generic statements and you’ve based it on one game.

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't move the goalposts, you're being incredibly dishonest and almost verging on lying now.

You’ve gone from ‘he’s been average this season’ to ‘he’s been average compared to other Irish players’ - again expanding on your intial post when pulled up on it. How am I lying here? That is what you said, isn’t it?

Deleted User wrote: »

You clearly aren't interested in a discussion because you've made your mind up what my point is before even trying to understand it and even when I clarify and expand upon it, you just simply ignore that.

But what you’ve expanded on is into a completely different statement. Saying that Larmour has been average in one post and then saying ‘average compared to other players’ are two completely different things.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's just moronic. Where have I based three players performance on one players performance?

You said Larmour has been average

You then said Larmour has been average compared to other players.

I can then twist that and say they’ve all been average compared to James Lowe.

Get the point I’m making yet? You might if you didn’t move the goalposts or had to ‘clarify’ so many of your sweeping general statements.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're very busy accusing me of saying what I haven't said, rather than actually replying to what I have said.

I'd suggest you invest less of yourself in an individual rugby player, it might help avoid derailing threads when someone politely disagrees with you.

How am I derailing a thread? You came in here and just stared talking about how average he has been and using one game as your evidence, all while saying if our first choice full back was available then Leinster probably don’t lose.

I simply point out that is bollocks because Larmour wasn’t the problem that day, and it was only then that you said there were multiple reasons. Correct?

Deleted User wrote: »

Larmour is a great prospect. He isn't quite there yet, largely due to to his defensive abilities. There are multiple posters here saying similar things about his defensive lapses, and plenty of pundits have commented on his defense over the last year. Yet you insist on unpleasantly trying to twist my argument into being far more extreme than it is.

But he’s had plenty of games where he has shown a good head in defence. Montpellier last year against Nadolo, Australia etc.

His defence is fine in terms of the fundamentals, but it’s his positioning that has more often than not let him down. That’s where Kearney trumps him from a massive height.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm allowed to disagree on a player without having you trying to twist everything I say, selectively quote me, and verge on lying about what I've argued.

Cheers and choose someone else to be unpleasant to in future!

I just thought you were chatting nonsense is all. You came in here making sweeping statements and then ‘clarified’ them after you were pulled up on it.

Now you’re saying I’m twisting what you said and lying, when everything I’ve quoted you on is exactly what you said. Look at how you portray your arguments in future and you won’t get anyone trying to misrepresent what you said.

Mind you, I didn’t misrepresent anything. You said exactly what you have said any changed your mind on what you meant a couple of times now. It’s all very confusing.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

gary ringrose

Got a good going over here for his defensive performance when he made his first start in green.

pickarooney

AdamD wrote: »

Has there ever been a young back that boards haven't immediately decided is a poor defender? Genuinely curious. Just seems like the go to drawback to immediately put on a young player

Ringrose and Henshaw, I don't think either were written off as poor defenders by a significant number of posters.

Interested Observer

pickarooney wrote: »

Ringrose and Henshaw, I don't think either were written off as poor defenders by a significant number of posters.

Ringrose got all the treatment Larmour got and more. He was competing was Payne for Ireland and the forum is obsessed with having that experience so he got nitpicked to death.

Henshaw not so much I think.

pickarooney

Interested Observer wrote: »

Ringrose got all the treatment Larmour got and more. He was competing was Payne for Ireland and the forum is obsessed with having that experience so he got nitpicked to death.

Henshaw not so much I think.

Ach, I don't remember. Must've been my own personal view of him, then!

I'm going to say this now - Payne was a ****ing dullard of a centre.