RugbyRebels

I've been thinking about a fairer way to calculate "losingest" players. The straight number of losses is basically a funvtion of career length and team strength, not individual ineptitude. It is grossly unfair to Sergio Parisse to award him the title simply because he has the fortitude to stick it out for 100+ tests as the only actual test-class player in a shit team that chooses to only play out of it's depth.

It seems to me that a true losingest player is one that drags his team down simply by taking the field. So here is a list of the players (6N, RC only) with individual success percentages that are the smallest proportion of their nation's overall success precentage during the pro era. To ensure the players have had a reasonable sort of career and not make the list simply because a brief test spot coincided with a general dip in form I've imposed a minimum of 10 tests.


Ireland (57.41%): MC McCall (10.00%) = 17.42%
Argentina (51.96%): N Lobo (10.00%) = 19.25%
Scotland (41.15%): DJ Lee (8.33%) = 20.24%
Italy (27.75%): A Esposito, E Padovani, M Phillips, A Steyn (7.14%) = 25.75%
France (58.49%): R Taofifenua (20.00%) = 34.19%
South Africa (62.92%): F de Klerk (27.27%) = 43.34%
England (64.63%): SA Perry (28.57%) = 44.21%
Wales (50.57%): GM Thomas (29.16%) = 57.66%
Australia (62.00%): DS Haylett-Petty = 62.71%
New Zealand (84.77%): RK Willis (58.33%) = 68.81%

And the converse - "winningest" players with the success rate that is the highet proportion of their nation's overall success rate (6N/RC teams, pro era, minimum 10 starts):

Italy (27.75%): M Cuttitta (57.69%) = 207.89%
Wales (50.57%): G Lewis (81.25%) = 160.67%
Argentina (51.96%): H Senillosa (81.81%) = 157.44%
Scotland (41.45%): JAA Ansbro (63.63%) = 153.51%
England (64.63%): OM Itoje (91.66%) = 141.82%
France (58.49%): A Penaud (81.81%) = 139.87%
Ireland (57.41%): FJ Sheahan (79.31%) = 138.15%
South Africa (62.92%): AC Garvey (85.71%) = 136.22%
Australia (62.00%): JS Little (83.78%) = 135.51%
New Zealand (84.77%): ST Piutau (100%) = 117.97%


There's a couple of flaws in this system. First, in some cases depending on selection policies it might just be identifying players only trusted agaisnt weak opposition. Secondly because, as shown by Perfect Piutau, a player in a very good team can only lift them so far above their overall success rate. In order to move even one place up in the pecking order, Piutau would have needed to win 23 of his 17 tests.

This weekend the All Blacks are looking for a clean sweep of The Rugby Championship, and the Pumas will be fighting for at least a draw to avoid a whitewash.

3N/TRC Clean Sweeps

TriNations (began 1996)*
1996: All Blacks
1997: All Blacks
1998: Springboks
2003: All Blacks
2010: All Blacks

TRC (began 2012)**
2012: All Blacks
2013: All Blacks
2015: Wallabies**
2016: All Blacks

3N/TRC Whitewashes

TriNations
1998: All Blacks
2005: Wallabies

TRC
2013: Pumas
2015: Springboks**

*4 rounds 1996-2005; 6 rounds 2006, 2008-2010; 4 rounds in RWC years 2007, 2011
**6 rounds 2012-2014, 2016; 3 rounds RWC year 2015

Lizard wrote:And the converse - "winningest" players with the success rate that is the highet proportion of their nation's overall success rate (6N/RC teams, pro era, minimum 10 starts):

Italy (27.75%): M Cuttitta (57.69%) = 207.89%
Wales (50.57%): G Lewis (81.25%) = 160.67%
Argentina (51.96%): H Senillosa (81.81%) = 157.44%
Scotland (41.45%): JAA Ansbro (63.63%) = 153.51%
England (64.63%): OM Itoje (91.66%) = 141.82%
France (58.49%): A Penaud (81.81%) = 139.87%
Ireland (57.41%): FJ Sheahan (79.31%) = 138.15%
South Africa (62.92%): AC Garvey (85.71%) = 136.22%
Australia (62.00%): JS Little (83.78%) = 135.51%
New Zealand (84.77%): ST Piutau (100%) = 117.97%


There's a couple of flaws in this system. First, in some cases depending on selection policies it might just be identifying players only trusted agaisnt weak opposition. Secondly because, as shown by Perfect Piutau, a player in a very good team can only lift them so far above their overall success rate. In order to move even one place up in the pecking order, Piutau would have needed to win 23 of his 17 tests.

The worse the nation is, the better the player looks. Hence Italian Cuttitta's place at the top of this table. Need some way to neutralise that effect.

The All Blacks noted this little stat in their release of the team for this weekend:

The All Blacks have scored 49 tries this year, so the next one makes 50 – and that will be the 13th time this century. It is ten years since any other team has reached 50 tries.

(in a calendar year, one assumes?)

Not too arrogant to assume the All Blacks will score at least one try this weekend, given their average per game so far.

Makes me kind of weepy tho, to remember all those pundit/wankers talking for the last 25 years about how the professional era would inevitably destroy New Zealand's pre-eminence, when in fact we've become more dominant than ever before. Life is strange.

New Zealand has certainly exceeded my expectations in the pro era, but really it shouldn't be too surprising, as it is the only country in the world, apart from the Pacific Islands, where rugby is the number 1 sport - and thus receives full backing from the nation, as well as pride of place in the media. Prior to the professional era New Zealand was suffering badly, with Polynesian players shunning the game en masse due to continuing contacts with Apartheid South Africa. League was increasingly perceived as the working man's game, and amateur union offered no way out. Meanwhile, a generation of Pacific Islanders had grown up in New Zealand since immigration had begun to open up in the late 50s and early 60s. The All Blacks had suffered in the late 70s and early 80s against increasingly professional opponents, and not until the advent of a World Cup did they finally venture into the shamateur zone themselves. So it all came together in the late 80s and early 90s, with the game turning legally pro, NZ winning the inaugural World Cup, South Africa emerging from the Apartheid era and Polynesians returning to the game en masse. & the franchise system has worked sublimely for a nation with a small economy but a large pool of world class players. Kudos to them.

So the All Blacks are dominating while rebuilding. Nice.

Players used in TRC:
All Blacks: 36
Arg: 30
Aus: 29
SA: 29

Players to have played all 5 tests:
All Blacks: 9
Arg: 14
Aus: 15
SA: 15

This was pinched from Scotty Stevenson’s Twitter.

rowan wrote:New Zealand has certainly exceeded my expectations in the pro era, but really it shouldn't be too surprising, as it is the only country in the world, apart from the Pacific Islands, where rugby is the number 1 sport - and thus receives full backing from the nation, as well as pride of place in the media. Prior to the professional era New Zealand was suffering badly, with Polynesian players shunning the game en masse due to continuing contacts with Apartheid South Africa. League was increasingly perceived as the working man's game, and amateur union offered no way out. Meanwhile, a generation of Pacific Islanders had grown up in New Zealand since immigration had begun to open up in the late 50s and early 60s. The All Blacks had suffered in the late 70s and early 80s against increasingly professional opponents, and not until the advent of a World Cup did they finally venture into the shamateur zone themselves. So it all came together in the late 80s and early 90s, with the game turning legally pro, NZ winning the inaugural World Cup, South Africa emerging from the Apartheid era and Polynesians returning to the game en masse. & the franchise system has worked sublimely for a nation with a small economy but a large pool of world class players. Kudos to them.

Of course, this has been coincidental with the unexpected demise of most of their main rivals for one reason or another. South Africa continues to struggle with the political transition and integration process, while France has been weakened by an inundation of foreign players into its club leagues. Australia, meanwhile, is the most unfairly judged team in international rugby due mostly to its regular contacts with the almighty Kiwis. We forget that union is only a minor sport on the Red Continent, confined largely to the East Coast where it continues to live in the shadow of its 13-man counterpart, and that for many decades the Wallabies had hardly been taken seriously. Their heydey was undoubtedly in the 80s & 90s, when the All Blacks had yet to reach their potential in the pro era and South Africa were either politically isolated (or still recovering from it), but they've made two World Cup finals since the turn of the century - including the last one, of course. As for the Home Unions, overall there has been some improvement, as the recent Lions series indicates, though still not enough to close the gap on the All Blacks in general terms.

Statistics, man. It’s a statistics thread.

I rection

So no analytical comment nor replying to other posters' comments then? Sounds a little bit weird to me.

Assuming no changes to the named Springboks team, this weekend Steve Kitshoff will start his first test after a world record 18 appearances only off the bench.

Most caps without a single start:
18: S Kitshoff* (SA) (Named to start this weekend)
15: LB Gill (Aust)
14: B Duarte (Rom)
11: A Gordas* (Rom), MT Mbonambi* (SA), S Scott (Sco), KNJS Sinckler* (Eng/Lions), D Williams (USA)
10: M Bender (Ger), N Lobo (Arg), MJ Moore (Ire)
9: I Colati Koliavu (Fiji), P Ceccarelli* (Ita), C Chat* (Fra), AOHM Tu'ungafasi* (NZ), MH Shimange*(SA), BG Burdette (USA)

*Active players

rowan wrote:So no analytical comment nor replying to other posters' comments then? Sounds a little bit weird to me.

Dude - you were replaying to yourself and not analysing any stats. I mean, if that's your thing then its cool, man, just like this is the thread for stats. Like, you could have put up some numbers showing "Polynesian players shunning the game en masse due to continuing contacts with Apartheid South Africa" or something, or showing how "The All Blacks had suffered in the late 70s and early 80s against increasingly professional opponents" eg:

All Blacks Post WWII success rate by decade:
1950s: 75.0%
1960s: 86.9%
1970s: 63.3%
1980s: 81.6%
1990s: 75.0%
2000s: 82.3%
2010s: 90.8%*

*To date. Also, this is a ridiculous number.

That sounds a little too dictative and confining for me. I am simply providing the benefit of my insight, which is extensive enough without the need to go digging through the stats.

Let us bathe in the magnificence of your extensiveness.

I mean, what sort of a weirdo brings data to a discussion.

Wouldn't take it too personally mate. It's not the point.

You present your stats and have a problem with people offering analytical comment, sharing their insight and responding to other posters' comments? That's very, very weird - while Morepork's comments are embarrassingly infantile as usual.

I'm cut to the quick.

As I said, it's no big deal.

morepork wrote:I'm cut to the quick.

As I said, it's no big deal.

Don't be afraid to reach out. We're here for and we don't want you to become another statistic of this brutal board.

The All Blacks have scored 49 tries this year, so the next one makes 50 – and that will be the 13th time this century. It is ten years since any other team has reached 50 tries.

I posted this because I find it kinda shocking.

13/17 years scoring 50 tries, and no other country has done the same for 10 years?!?! Not one of the other "Tier 1" nations? Maybe the All Blacks should be in the "Premier League"? Lol, that was a joke. Are jokes allowed?

(OK, so it wasn't a very good joke. Mea culpa.)

Does our man Lizard have a line on tries scored per calendar year for the Tier 1 nations since, say, 2000? I could drool over some of that ...

Scuzza....you've been in Germany too long mate.

Watch it or Liz will start invoicing you for services to stats soon.

Who do you regard as Tier 1? You're lucky I have some time to kill in the Koru lounge!

Argentina
2000: 8 tries
2001: 23
2002: 50
2003: 92
2004: 53
2005: 37
2006: 24
2007: 42
2008: 23
2009: 21
2010: 21
2011: 32
2012: 51
2013: 42
2014: 42
2015: 50
2016: 43
2017: 20

Australia
2000: 31
2001: 28
2002: 24
2003: 64
2004: 40
2005: 52
2006: 40
2007: 52
2008: 33
2009: 29
2010: 49
2011: 44
2012: 15
2013: 36
2014: 35
2015: 46
2016: 39
2017: 34

WTF happened in 2012?

England
2000: 24 tries
2001: 70*
2002: 37
2003: 68
2004: 36
2005: 24
2006: 22
2007: 33
2008: 18
2009: 21
2010: 16
2011: 37
2012: 23
2013: 23
2014: 28
2015: 41
2016: 46
2017: 24

*20 of which came from a single match v Romania (134 - 0)

Who do you regard as Tier 1? You're lucky I have some time to kill in the Koru lounge!

Southern Hemisphere plus 6 Nations minus Scotland and Italy.

(Scotland on a recent up-trend, yet to fully convince of their staying power.)

England, eh? Ever wonder what an All Blacks vs Romania test match would look like? Would that even BE a test match? Seems unlikely to happen. Maybe in a future RWC ...

P.S. Did the All Blacks manage to lose a scrum feed on the weekend?

I didn't see any but I got a bit distracted screaming at the telly. That would also be a statistical oddity: the only team in the RC to have kept a scrum feed clean sheet, with over 50 scrums without a loss on own feed.