Speaker: God is in the numbers
108 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
In comparison, France will only mishandle twice every five minutes.
My Bad, that should be "__once__ every five minutes", but you figured that out already didn't you?
-
Eeep. That does it. I am *definitely* staying in the kitchen for the match on Sunday. I will fry up everything I can lay my hands on until it's all over.
-
Eeep. That does it. I am *definitely* staying in the kitchen for the match on Sunday. I will fry up everything I can lay my hands on until it's all over
I'm with you, and reading Chris Rattue in todays Herald claiming that France 'pose absolutely no threat to the All Blacks' for some reason does not make me feel better.
Yes, I am sure we have - on paper and on form - the best group of players, but why oh why do we have a group of sports journalists who seem to oscillate wildly (tm) between two modes; complete triumphalism ahead of the event (always good for motivating opposition), and bitter disproportionate recrimination after the fact.
Rhetorical question I think.
-
-
Why would you go and make me more nervous than I already am?!?
but why oh why do we have a group of sports journalists who seem to oscillate wildly (tm) between two modes
I much prefer them to be defeatist thanks. In 03 they went on about us thrashing Oz in the semi, same as 99 against France.
All I wanna hear is our journalists going on about how much we're gonna lose by...
-
I'm just crunching the numbers at the moment strictly comparing France to New Zealand and it doesn't look like any kind of cakewalk*. I'll post those up soon.
*What does that mean? Cakewalk?
-
Do you think these stats say more about the opposition (committed & passionate but limited) than about the ABs (who have probably had half a mind on Cardiff for the last six months or so)?
I think a cakewalk is a bit like a sashay, only more manly.
Nervous about France. Could shoot Rattue.
-
I think your stats tell us more about you than they do about any rugby - which is not very much.
Unless you have exactly the sames teams playing in each game you are not comparing apples with apples ever.
This means that the history in the tournament doesn't mean much. All of the smart teams would be holding players in reserve until the bigger games from now on out. You are just having a bit of fun with numbers.
Also -most statisticians knows you cannot average averages and that is what in effect you are doing.
Now if you had the stats for each player and you compared those - you might get a bit closer - but the psychology of a semi or final is different to the warm up games.
Also the fact that x teamm won the last 3 games at a particular venue is also no predictor of the oiutcome. Sometimes the players themselves might be influenced by such things but the reality is that all games are different because you are never comparing the same actual players.
I would say one of the key variables is the extent of injuries to key players and that has a much greater influence on the outcome than anything else.
You haven't even mentioned injuries and you don't know exactly who will be playing in each team so until then your stats are just a diversion.
-
Huh! Learning and growing with Google and word-detective.com:
>>One kind of contest popular in the African-American community in the 19th century was the "cakewalk," in which couples competed strolling arm in arm, with the prize, a cake, being awarded to the most graceful and stylish team.
Since "cakewalking" demanded both skill and grace, victory in the contest was rarely a "cakewalk" in our modern "easy" sense. That modern use of "cakewalk" in the came from the boxing ring, where a very easy victory over an outclassed opponent was likened to a refined "cakewalk" compared to the ordinarily prolonged and brutal nature of the matches. By 1877, "cakewalk" had graduated from the boxing ring and acquired its general meaning of "an effortless victory." <<
-
Oh, and well done guys, another PA thread makes the MSM
Dropkicks definitely deserve more whisky.
-
Jason:
Given that every single played during the pool matches I think we are able to smooth out the results and claim that these number represent each countries form in the pool matches.Averaging averages is not as conclusive as you would have us believe. In fact there are certain situations where it is fine to do so. The only time I really did average the average was in the possession statistics and that was allowed as the denominator stayed the same throughout.
You would have been better to attack the fact that there was on a small sample (4 games) and that the games themselves were not of the best quality and that teams in different pools had different opponents.
I agree with you about "historical stats". We've never lost a test at Carisbrook...until we did. And I also agree that injuries affect the outcome of a game more than any other factor. However, currently every team at the world cup (and in many other tournaments) claim injuries when there really are none (locking crisis anyone?).
Danielle:
I never would've guessed that -
Thanks Hadyn - your stats may be better than others - but I still don't see how comparing teams which never contains the same players really works.
I was also thinking of something John Hart said on Campbell Live about forgetting the world cup history and looking to the future.
I just wonder how many of the players can actually do that very well. Skills do tell tell part of the story but not all.
-
Yawn. As someone once said, there's lies, damn lies and statistics. Most of those figures mean and prove absolutely nothing:
The Italian scrum won 97% of its own put ins (equal with England) and 22% of the opposition's put ins. This awesome scrum power is the reason Italy is also the second team most likely to win back the ball after a handling error. Italy recovered the ball 18% of the time behind the awesome might of England with 23%.
Yeah, and a fat lot of good it did them. Who gives a fuck, frankly. I suppose you've got to find some way to enliven the predictable tedium of group play.
-
These are fascinating Hadyn -- Dropkicks drop-kick the MSM again! -- but irrelevant on a single count: they were not forged in the cauldron of real pressure test rugby -- certainly not in the case of the All Blacks.
That starts now. And I'm still picking us to beat the French by a substantial margin.
-
<quote>And I'm still picking us to beat the French by a substantial margin.</ quote>
Russell!!! Why on Earth would you say such a thing? Have you not learned from years gone by?
HUBRIS PEOPLE! WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
-
merc,
Pipeline is a cakewalk when you know how.
Jerry Lopez.
-
All this talk of looking forward to the final leaves me feeling very chilly. As does the dismissing of the French; this France side, while not being the best ever, is a mile ahead of the 1999 model. And don’t get me started on picking a fullback at centre.
-
Oh, the optimistic predictions, they will jinx us! I know it!
If you optimists need us, Richard and David and I will be over here in the separate superstitious sporting-goth area, frying mushrooms and quietly panicking.
-
Well done Dropkicks - I know this has been said before, but how come 'big' 'proper' websites don't insert links? They've included the URL on that Herald story, but how hard would it have been to include the ACTUAL link and share the love?
And yes, we'll do over France. Get confident people!
-
The biggest mistake in the post went un-noticed for quite some time: the link at the bottom should read go to http://dropkicks.co.nz
Apologies to those who were sent into the wilderness.Also if anyone can get me all of the player stats I would lurve to analyse them.
-
These are fascinating Hadyn -- Dropkicks drop-kick the MSM again! -- but irrelevant on a single count: they were not forged in the cauldron of real pressure test rugby
but surely that's the point.
this much poor handling and other assorted bad stats were versus a bunch of minnows.
how will we handle the jandle versus a side that has out-statted us despite playing in the pool of death?
-
WH,
What does that mean? Cakewalk?
Apparently it has something to do with hoecake.
Great stats. With all those turnovers and tries per minute of possession, all we have to cut down on the unforced errors and hope the lineout still works.
</famous last words> -
PS. We did almost call this post "Lies Lies and damned stats". I've corrected the links. And i'm seriously concerned about France.
From not-so-sunny CHCH, over and out.
-
"After extensively trolling the internet"
I think that's meant to be trawling the internet as in dragging a net to snare information.
As for the statistical breakdowns; it all means niente if the All Blacks lose when it matters most. And we've all been there and seen that. I bet the statistics flattered the ABs in the previous four tournaments before disaster struck - in 1991, in 1995, in 1999 and in 2003. Go figure.
-
Christ, and the prize for most depressing blog entry of the year goes to this one, for statisticking the crap out of positivity for the weekend.
Selections were interesting. Keith Robinson I can understand. He needs some game time if he's going to be worth playing for the rest of the tournament. Jack on the bench, so if it's a problem, the substitution can just be made early.
Howlett must be wondering what he has to do to be the #1 winger. The other two haven't been playing bad (Sivivatu's dropsies aside) but Howlett is in the form of his life. I don't see how he could do more, he was clearly #1 I thought.
I don't understand the fascination with McAlister over Mauger, who I think is exactly the person you'd want in the backline come crunch time in the big games - reliable, experienced, less likely to make fatal errors.
I'm with RB. ABs will take this by 25+ points, and knock the memory of 1999 on the head well and truly. Cardiff will practically be a home game for them, the Welsh won't cheer for the frogs.
I liked TV3's attempt at wriggling around the law to play the adverts on Sunday morning, particularly #3 rule:
3: Be targeted primarily at audiences outside New Zealand.
"Our signal outside of New Zealand will reach a combined population of more than nine million people, which is more than double New Zealand's population, making the Pacific audience the primary audience for the signal.
"One country alone in the Pacific group, Papua New Guinea, has a substantially larger population than New Zealand, with 6.2 million people.
I wonder how much they had to offer some PNG TV channel to play the game at about 11pm at night. I know PNG play rugby league, do they play much rugby?
I can't imagine one million PNG people getting up at 2am to watch the All Blacks.
Yes sure TV3. You primarily bought the rights to the Rugby World Cup so you could broadcast it around the Pacific Islands. The fact that you could also show it in New Zealand (where all the adverts will originate from) was just a fringe benefit. Whatever.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.