Lions 2017 [MOD WARNING IN OP]

20-06-2017 02:13PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a very clear difference between just stating POM's stat line and asking what he did to using stats as part of an article that points out exactly what he did in depth.

POM has a target on his back for some people. He's getting the plaudits he deserves though. Lets just remember a certain someone was claiming his international career was probably over last November and here we are less than a year later and he's captained the Lions and very likely to play in the first test.

There's not that much depth in the article really. With the breakdown section in particular there's a lot of waffle, one concrete example, and then an entirely subjective claim he made 20 strong contributions. There's also an absolute gem at the end, stating the Maori only had 50 rucks therefore we can ignore the defensive bit. Which I'm reading as he didn't really do a whole lot defensively (or else the author wasn't bothered).

His lineout work is always excellent so no problem with that aspect.

Buer · 20-06-2017 02:14PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a very clear difference between just stating POM's stat line and asking what he did to using stats as part of an article that points out exactly what he did in depth.

POM has a target on his back for some people. He's getting the plaudits he deserves though. Lets just remember a certain someone was claiming his international career was probably over last November and here we are less than a year later and he's captained the Lions and very likely to play in the first test.

I'll hold my hands up and say I felt that he was going on tour as a likely midweek player and I reckoned Itoje would get a run at 6 (I'm still surprised we haven't seen that given the talent available at lock). He's extremely talented but I've always thought he has 3 or 4 solid games punctuated by 1 great game rather than consistently performing at that top level which is needed to be a test Lion. But he has had a good tour. Not exceptional but very good and, for me, deserves the jersey ahead of all other options on tour.

But I've just read that article and it's a whole lot of hot air. It's someone who has forensically gone through 60 minutes of rugby looking for any bread and butter stuff to be held up as a reason for a bloke to start a Lions test.

The ruck that is cited is a blindside carry off a scrum. The blindside flanker gets there and clears it (nobody is contesting though). Who else is going to be getting there to clear a blindside move off a scrum on the 5m line?

POM, great player and I'd love it if he was captain this Saturday but that article is right up there with my rhetoric on Bernard Jackman's coaching abilities. Clutching at anything.

Christy42 · 20-06-2017 02:17PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a very clear difference between just stating POM's stat line and asking what he did to using stats as part of an article that points out exactly what he did in depth.

POM has a target on his back for some people. He's getting the plaudits he deserves though. Lets just remember a certain someone was claiming his international career was probably over last November and here we are less than a year later and he's captained the Lions and very likely to play in the first test.

I never said he should not start but that stat is part of his stat line. You can take issue with what stats ESPN includes but you can't take issue with stats in general and then use a stat to prove your point.

If anything using a stat in an article is far more open to twisting the stats to your own viewpoint. Now as I say I agree that POM should at a minimum start but that article is right by pure fluke. Kind of like arguing BOD was the best center because leister wore blue and the sky is blue. Sure BOD was our best center but the reasoning used to get there in this case was dumb.

irishbucsfan · 20-06-2017 02:18PM

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

There's not that much depth in the article really. With the breakdown section in particular there's a lot of waffle, one concrete example, and then an entirely subjective claim he made 20 strong contributions. There's also an absolute gem at the end, stating the Maori only had 50 rucks therefore we can ignore the defensive bit. Which I'm reading as he didn't really do a whole lot defensively (or else the author wasn't bothered).

His lineout work is always excellent so no problem with that aspect.

There's no getting away from subjective claims. You have to either accept them or go out and disprove them I'm afraid. The sport isn't granular enough to be able to objectively differentiate between different contributions in tight play.

He was busy defensively for me. Always seemed to be in the line, talking to everyone around him, setting the pace. That's a crucial aspect of defense that is again totally subjective.

20-06-2017 02:19PM

Nowell found form a bit too late. I thought he had a good shout before the tour. Watson took his chances.

irishbucsfan · 20-06-2017 02:21PM

Christy42 wrote: »

I never said he should not start but that stat is part of his stat line.

You're being pedantic but you're not being correct. It's not part of his ESPN stat line. Noone gave out about using stats in general, he complained about using the much maligned ESPN stats.

Christy42 wrote: »

If anything using a stat in an article is far more open to twisting the stats to your own viewpoint. Now as I say I agree that POM should at a minimum start but that article is right by pure fluke. Kind of like arguing BOD was the best center because leister wore blue and the sky is blue. Sure BOD was our best center but the reasoning used to get there in this case was dumb.

I don't really understand this at all. POM should start because he's been the best player on tour so far out of all the options. That game was part of it and that article was talking about that game. Nothing to do with some weird irrelevant stuff about jersey colours.

I'm not actually saying it was a great article. But it was an article attempting to convey something that is massively difficult to get across.

20-06-2017 02:25PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's no getting away from subjective claims. You have to either accept them or go out and disprove them I'm afraid. The sport isn't granular enough to be able to objectively differentiate between different contributions in tight play.

He was busy defensively for me. Always seemed to be in the line, talking to everyone around him, setting the pace. That's a crucial aspect of defense that is again totally subjective.

Well I don't agree with the first part, if you're (as in, the author) going to make a claim the burden of proof is on you. I'm not going to attempt to disprove him anyway.

Second paragraph, is that enough for a test Lion? He had good presence? It's a contact sport, backrow is a physical position, I want my blindside tackling and carrying the ball, amongst other things which he may have done well, sure. It's the bread-and-butter of the sport.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Noone gave out about using stats in general, he complained about using the much maligned ESPN stats.

Why did he complain though? It's not a point of principle. It's because TRK is a Munster site and those stats paint a Munster darling as having a very quiet game. As Venjur mentions above, the fact this article was even written is telling.

leakyboots · 20-06-2017 02:26PM

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Dont use ESPN stats but POM was involved in 26% of lions attacking rucks. I assume TRK is out cold in his basement from repeatedly punching himself in the face ?

You've missed the point completely in relation to the original post. If you work off ESPN stats you'd think he made no contributions (which is what the poster was inferring). TRK is making the point that you can look at other parameters and gave an example of his workrate (which can't really be put on a sports stat site). The article is a bit wishywashy in other places.

The same posters cream themselves when Murray Kinsella tells us Big Dev was involved in 40+ rucks, so I dunno, which is it lads

I don't think POM was spectacular the other day but to say he was anonymous or poor is waffle.

It's like Venjur complaining that Stander isn't in form... constantly finds contact... eh.. that's what he's there to do, burst holes, top carrier on the tour, top carrier in the ERC. Making the other team tackle him, ususally with two players, time and time again over the 80. And he always gets over the gameline - only Billy Vunipola would have been more effective in this regard.

'But he can't/doesn't distribute...', he still passed more than anyone else bar the 9 and 10 (maybe Payne?) today

POM is there to disrupt lineouts, hit ruck after ruck, do a share of the tight carrying and distribute. Think he's having a great tour.

20-06-2017 02:29PM

leakyboots wrote: »

The same posters cream themselves when Murray Kinsella tells us Big Dev was involved in 40+ rucks, so I dunno, which is it lads

The day he did that he was also joint top tackler. Terrible example to use.

Buer · 20-06-2017 02:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nowell found form a bit too late. I thought he had a good shout before the tour. Watson took his chances.

Yup, really looked hungry and dangerous today as did Williams. All just a fraction too late but, if they go well against the Hurricanes, they've every chance of test appearances as I don't see North doing much on Saturday (assuming he's picked).

aloooof · 20-06-2017 02:32PM

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

As Venjur mentions above, the fact this article was even written is telling.

I've posted this already, but is it really that surprising that a Munster fan site posts an article about the performance of the Munster captain after he captained the Lions??? I think you're reading too much into this.

20-06-2017 02:34PM

aloooof wrote: »

I've posted this already, but is it really that surprising that a Munster fan site posts an article about the performance of the Munster captain after he captained the Lions??? I think you're reading too much into this.

It's the incredibly defensive, almost precious tone of the article that is most illustrative.

irishbucsfan · 20-06-2017 02:34PM

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

Well I don't agree with the first part, if you're (as in, the author) going to make a claim the burden of proof is on you. I'm not going to attempt to disprove him anyway.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the claim is worthless without him specifically going through every contribution and point out it's validity. It's just a subjective claim and that's very common in rugby analysis. I haven't seen you making the same complaint abour Kinsella's ruck marks for example.

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

Second paragraph, is that enough for a test Lion? He had good presence? It's a contact sport, backrow is a physical position, I want my blindside tackling and carrying the ball, amongst other things which he may have done well, sure. It's the bread-and-butter of the sport.

It's absolutely good enough for a test rugby player in a game against a side who've only gone through 50 breakdowns, yes. If they were carrying into contact more and had more possession then you'd care less about winning the battle for space and more about dominating the collision and you'd want your Haskell-esque single direction player.

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

Why did he complain though? It's not a point of principle. It's because TRK is a Munster site and those stats paint a Munster darling as having a very quiet game. As Venjur mentions above, the fact this article was even written is telling.

I'm sure he's extremely biased. But the article points out the waste of time of using ESPN stats like you did earlier. It's a good point, albeit not amazingly well made.

At the end of the day, he's had a good game and some people haven't been able to see that. He's not going to lose sleep over it and he's likely still going to be in that test side. The real interesting part will come next week when we see if him and the rest of the loose forwards are good enough to perform against the ABs... because as great as the Lions defense has been so far they haven't really faced anything like the ABs.

20-06-2017 02:34PM

aloooof wrote: »

I've posted this already, but is it really that surprising that a Munster fan site posts an article about the performance of the Munster captain after he captained the Lions??? I think you're reading too much into this.

Look at the context of the article. It's a reaction to the ESPN stats, he says it straight up.

Buer · 20-06-2017 02:35PM

leakyboots wrote: »

It's like Venjur complaining that Stander isn't in form... constantly finds contact... eh.. that's what he's there to do, burst holes, top carrier on the tour, top carrier in the ERC. Making the other team tackle him, ususally with two players, time and time again over the 80. And he always gets over the gameline - only Billy Vunipola would have been more effective in this regard.

'But he can't/doesn't distribute...', he still passed more than anyone else bar the 9 and 10 (maybe Payne?) today.

Interesting stuff, LB.

Where are you getting those stats from?

leakyboots · 20-06-2017 02:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The day he did that he was also joint top tackler. Terrible example to use.

No, not at all. We're talking about the things you don't see on an ESPN stat sheet remember

penybont exile · 20-06-2017 02:41PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a very clear difference between just stating POM's stat line and asking what he did to using stats as part of an article that points out exactly what he did in depth.

POM has a target on his back for some people. He's getting the plaudits he deserves though. Lets just remember a certain someone was claiming his international career was probably over last November and here we are less than a year later and he's captained the Lions and very likely to play in the first test.

I like O'Mahoney .... he brings a kind of rugged edge to a team. This is definitely required against NZ.

They will do anything it takes to win on Saturday .... especially if the scoreboard keeps close. The Lions need to match that mind set and do whatever it takes to put huge pressure on the 8,9,10 axis. They are all great going forward but i'm not convinced they are that hot if they are static (or going backwards). Barrett can get flustered under pressure .... Dan Carter he is not [IMO].

Quoting stats to backup "he should / she should" is bollocks! Watch the game and then form an opinion. If someone is lazy it will be noticeable. If someone makes a difference it will be noticeable. If someone makes a mistake it will be noticeable. If someone is consistently good it will be noticeable. Ditto for average and bad. A ten yard run, draw the man & average pass might make a significantly bigger contribution than a fifty yard run & deft offload. Stats in rugby .... save them for Wisden.

In my experience quoting rugby stats is the lazy way out ..... often favoured by those with poor ability / experience to analyse / articulate what actually took place during the game.

Burkie1203 · 20-06-2017 02:52PM

leakyboots wrote: »

You've missed the point completely in relation to the original post. If you work off ESPN stats you'd think he made no contributions (which is what the poster was inferring). TRK is making the point that you can look at other parameters and gave an example of his workrate (which can't really be put on a sports stat site). The article is a bit wishywashy in other places.

The same posters cream themselves when Murray Kinsella tells us Big Dev was involved in 40+ rucks, so I dunno, which is it lads

I don't think POM was spectacular the other day but to say he was anonymous or poor is waffle.

It's like Venjur complaining that Stander isn't in form... constantly finds contact... eh.. that's what he's there to do, burst holes, top carrier on the tour, top carrier in the ERC. Making the other team tackle him, ususally with two players, time and time again over the 80. And he always gets over the gameline - only Billy Vunipola would have been more effective in this regard.

'But he can't/doesn't distribute...', he still passed more than anyone else bar the 9 and 10 (maybe Payne?) today

POM is there to disrupt lineouts, hit ruck after ruck, do a share of the tight carrying and distribute. Think he's having a great tour.

I dont think stander has had a good tour at all. I think he has mixed the good with bad and has been far from top form. Yeah he carries loads and tackles but thats his job. He has coughed up a few soft penalties, got himself isolated a few times and butchered at least one really good chance of an overlap by seeking contact. The more important stat for his carries would be does he deliver quick ball, does he look to get offloads away to put guys through gaps or does he get isolated somewhat. Latter end of the season he was nullified to a degree. That points to a slightly one dimensional element to his game which is one area i feel he can improve upon.

As for POM, he has been he usual self for me. Nothing spectacular but his usual busy nuisance self. But the lions need that from him.

He should start on saturday but i think Warburton/sob/faletau will be the starting backrow.

molloyjh · 20-06-2017 03:07PM

Stats are fine as part of a wider discussion. They can be used to back up a point with the requisite amount of context. For example you could say X player carried well, citing a couple of specific examples and then backing that up further with stats.

Stats on their own can be equally valid, but they can also be painfully misleading as well. I've used the missed tackle stat before to illustrate that. Player X may have missed 0 tackles while player Y missed 4. But that doesn't tell you who the better defender is. It doesn't even tell you who the best tackler is. For that you need context. How many tackles did each attempt? What kind of tackles, in what part of the pitch were they? How many times did they simply not bother to attempt a tackle? And they're just some of the elements of context for determining who the best tackler is, nevermind who the best defender is.

bilston · 20-06-2017 04:02PM

The Lions need a bit of Munsteresque bloody mindedness this weekend. They need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Someone like POM can instil that into him because he does it week in week out with Munster.

20-06-2017 04:16PM

bilston wrote: »

The Lions need a bit of Munsteresque bloody mindedness this weekend. They need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Someone like POM can instil that into him because he does it week in week out with Munster.

??

I'd rather see the Lions win this weekend, this "Munsteresque'ness" hasn't delivered any titles in a long, long time.

20-06-2017 04:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

??

I'd rather see the Lions win this weekend, this "Munsteresque'ness" hasn't delivered any titles in a long, long time.

I was going to say, how it worked against Saracens and Scarlets?

Ireland didn't beat NZ last year with PASHUN and HONESTY. It's a bit cringey tbh thinking in the professional age that that's what wins games. Everyone on this tour is motivated to the n-th degree and the squad is full of leaders. There are going to be national team captains who don't make the 23. It's about getting the technical stuff right, making good decisions, and most importantly keeping mistakes to an absolute minimum because NZ are ruthless.

bilston · 20-06-2017 04:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

The Lions need a bit of Munsteresque bloody mindedness this weekend. They need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Someone like POM can instil that into him because he does it week in week out with Munster.

??

I'd rather see the Lions win this weekend, this "Munsteresque'ness" hasn't delivered any titles in a long, long time.

They punched well above their weight this season.

bilston · 20-06-2017 04:33PM

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

??

I'd rather see the Lions win this weekend, this "Munsteresque'ness" hasn't delivered any titles in a long, long time.

I was going to say, how it worked against Saracens and Scarlets?

Ireland didn't beat NZ last year with PASHUN and HONESTY. It's a bit cringey tbh thinking in the professional age that that's what wins games. Everyone on this tour is motivated to the n-th degree and the squad is full of leaders. There are going to be national team captains who don't make the 23. It's about getting the technical stuff right, making good decisions, and most importantly keeping mistakes to an absolute minimum because NZ are ruthless.

Sounds like Munster to me. Being effective and making the most of what you've got. The whole passion thing is merely part of it.

razorblunt · 20-06-2017 04:34PM

That young Scottish lad who makes the stop motion videos is having a proper tantrum on twitter, openly stating he's supporting NZ this weekend.

20-06-2017 04:39PM

bilston wrote: »

They punched well above their weight this season.

Except when it actually mattered?

molloyjh · 20-06-2017 04:48PM

bilston wrote: »

Billy Beautiful Guillotine wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

??

I'd rather see the Lions win this weekend, this "Munsteresque'ness" hasn't delivered any titles in a long, long time.

I was going to say, how it worked against Saracens and Scarlets?

Ireland didn't beat NZ last year with PASHUN and HONESTY. It's a bit cringey tbh thinking in the professional age that that's what wins games. Everyone on this tour is motivated to the n-th degree and the squad is full of leaders. There are going to be national team captains who don't make the 23. It's about getting the technical stuff right, making good decisions, and most importantly keeping mistakes to an absolute minimum because NZ are ruthless.

Sounds like Munster to me. Being effective and making the most of what you've got. The whole passion thing is merely part of it.

How much of that was "pashun" though, and how much of it was shrewd coaching? I'd rate Erasmus' influence a lot more than the "pashun" factor myself. It's not like Munster didn't have guys like POC and POM during their poorer days.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-06-2017 04:53PM

What do people see as the Lions' strengths and weaknesses for the first test?

Comparing to the squad from 12 years ago the current squad would appear to be much stronger in every position.

Having lost Billy Vunipola and Jamie Heaslip may prove to be costly.
Ben Youngs also if anything happens to Murray.

Anyone else that would have made a big difference?

How does the Lions team/squad match up to the All-Blacks team/squad?

What will be the likely game-plan from each side?
Assume that the Lions will look to carry directly and physically through contact and use the up-and-under quite a bit.

Jankouskas87 · 20-06-2017 05:28PM

I think that you have a lot of players with a winning mentality and are used to winning is probably the greatest strength , their self belief has to be high as a result.

I think the Lions will play "10 man rugby" to an extent and wouldn't take huge risks' whereas I think that becomes a bit more natural to New Zealand, they don't seem to be afraid to make multiple passes in the their 22 for example.

Going back to an earlier comment about "Pashun" i think it'll play a part but a small part , I think sport is becoming more about control, precision and the like now.Also is it just me or does "Pashun" create images of roaring ,shouting crying etc. ? Can you not be passionate about something you believe in but also very quiet and reserved about it?

Sorry that last point is a bit off topic but my head is melted from the sun !

20-06-2017 05:44PM

Murray Kinsella is saying he's set to be named captain for the first test. Pretty amazing achievement all the same, test Lion captains is a very small group of players.

Lions 2017 [MOD WARNING IN OP]

Comments