大象传媒

大象传媒.co.uk

Lies, damned lies and statistics

  • Gareth Lewis - 大象传媒 Wales Sport presenter
  • 9 Mar 07, 12:56 PM

Gareth Lewiswal_badge.gifCardiff - It occurred to me as I was browsing through the match data on the 大象传媒 Sport website before this weekend's round of games that rugby didn't used to revolve around statistics.

Now we have stats for everything - time in possession, scrums wons, line-outs lost, free-kicks conceded. Free kicks! Always the difference between winning and losing that one.

There is a place for the number crunching because it enlightens spectators and gives coaches and players a base from which to work on their improvements, but sometimes they just seem to explain the obvious.

Wales struggled to get a hand on the ball against Scotland, and kicked a lot of it away against France and as a result had only 30% possession in the official statistics table, which wasn't a great surprise.

Statistics can also be used both ways - a losing side can point to a good performance in the scrum or the line-out. A side which wins can still be criticised for the number of handling errors it made.

Tommy David of Pontypridd and the Lions was in studio for one of our radio programmes last season and said: "Rugby is such a simple game. You pick up the ball, go forward, and if you cross the line you put it down."

True, you may commit 250 possible infringements on the way to the try line, but it is easy to understand his point.

If Wales had 1% possession and won the game 5-0 against Italy on Saturday, I know I'd be pleased.

Stats have their place, whichever way they are spun, but the most important statistic, particularly if you haven't won yet, is two points.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 01:46 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Biscuits wrote:

True, if you look at the stats for Scotland Italy you could be forgiven for thinking that Scotland were the victors....

  • 2.
  • At 04:13 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Lee wrote:

If you look at statistics for England games for the last 4 years you might have expected them to have won (Posession and time in opp. half).
Not the case I'm sorry to say. The only stats that matter are points on the board.

  • 3.
  • At 04:39 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Loafer Steve wrote:

76.4% of all blogs are now stating the bleeding obvious.

  • 4.
  • At 04:41 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Steve P wrote:

If you will truly be happy with a 5 point victory against Italy, then you are not exactly shooting for the stars are you? What does that say about your opinion on the state of Welsh rugby?

  • 5.
  • At 04:55 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Dylan wrote:

Its all about posession. You can't score without it. Wales need to win their own ball and disrupt as much of the oppositions ball as possible.

  • 6.
  • At 04:58 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • hillsarealive wrote:

Statistics; priceless to a statistician but do they have much meaning to the average watching fan? After all, the person who pays the money to be there doesn't have this as part of the ticket price so why the viewer? And the thing that really annoys me are those bloody soccer scores that are put on during the game. Are they necessary? To whom?

  • 7.
  • At 05:51 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

I think stats are here to stay in rugby, just like in any sport. By and large, I think any coach has a lot to learn from them, but you're right to point out that they can occasionally be flawed.

I think the best example from this year's tournament has to be Simon Taylor's try from England's lineout at Twickenham - the stats actually showed England as 'winning' that lineout - the rationale being that two England players actually got a finger (and not much more!) to the ball before it reached Taylor!

  • 8.
  • At 05:58 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • josh wrote:

Statistics are nothing more than a systematic recording of the events of the match. Why get so bothered? The great thing about stats is that we can analyze them to find sometimes surprising things about which events are important when it comes to winning a match. Bill James, the father of sports statistical analysis, said that a good statistical analysis should yield about 20% surprising results. For example, analysis shows that posession time is not a very good indicator of who will win a match. Somewhat surprising.

  • 9.
  • At 07:54 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • rony wrote:

75% of statistics are made up

  • 10.
  • At 08:46 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

I think statistics add a little extra to a rugby discussion, however what they often fail to show is that it's not the amount of possession that's important but quality of possession. New Zealand would beat the majority of International teams comfortably with 30% of the ball.

  • 11.
  • At 12:21 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Stat Man wrote:

Statistics, Schmatistics! You can use statistics to prove anything...87% of all people know that.

  • 12.
  • At 07:10 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Chuwy wrote:

I'm about 67% sure that nine out of ten statisticians believe that 20% of the time, at least 83% of statistical records are more or less two thirds actual facts and one third approximations and that can produce an estimated error margin of about 20 to 33%, depending of course on the statistical measurement procedure.

Stats have a purpose, but they are not the only thing to take into account. All they do is portray select information. A particular viewpoint or part of the puzzle and not the whole thing. Stats can point out stengths and weaknesses and give options for improvement. For specialized analysis they are useful but to understand the game itself you just have to EXPERIENCE it.
Even without over 90% of possesion, you can still put 30 points over an opponent.Italy put 21 points past poor Scotland in 7 minutes. Stats are good, just don't forget the game itself.

Come on Wales! Hope to have a good game in Rome and lets win one! - please.

  • 13.
  • At 08:52 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

I love statistics. You can use them to prove (or disprove) almost any thing.

So...can any body tell me why scrummaging technique is given such prominance (when it is almost impossible to win against the head) over line out technique where there is always a chance of winning on the oppostion throw? In the last round of six nation games there were over twice as many line outs as scrums.

  • 14.
  • At 09:15 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • John Hall wrote:

Statistics state that 95% of the time statistics may be right; but 95% of the time you may have the right to be 5% wrong at least!

  • 15.
  • At 11:19 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • yrrabneehs wrote:

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it so statistics have their place.

  • 16.
  • At 11:42 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Statistics are like mini-skirts - they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing ;-)

  • 17.
  • At 12:31 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Lord Gwaelod wrote:

Regarding post 9 - that is only true 50% of the time

  • 18.
  • At 12:34 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • bruce leonard wrote:

my favourite definition of statistics; they are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital!

  • 19.
  • At 12:45 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • M A Kelly wrote:

Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts. - Dr. Charles Garfield

  • 20.
  • At 04:51 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • ian macko wrote:

"Pick the ball up,go forward and put it over the line."None of that in the Ireland,Scotland game,37 points scored and one try,i thought it was supposed to be a game of rugby,not goal-kicking.Awful.

  • 21.
  • At 05:26 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Beryl wrote:

Hmm. If statistics were the indication of the better team/player then Lee Trundle would be England striker, Ashley Giles (a far better bowler than Warne) would be world No1 wicket taker and England would have only lost two games out of their last twelve.

  • 22.
  • At 06:40 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

Only one statistic ever really matters - the final score

  • 23.
  • At 09:11 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Phil Knight wrote:

I'm reminded of a quote. "He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination".

  • 24.
  • At 09:17 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Theo wrote:

The colours red and blue go so well together. I Really like Hook's hair but I think that Henson has far nicer legs! Troncon might be a more solid scrum half but he really is pretty ugly xx

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them. Please note that submitting a comment is not the same as making a formal complaint - see this page for more details.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
    

The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites