2021 British & Irish Lions Squad

[Welsh Exile]

The Lions Test XV if Warren Gatland picked it entirely on stats

A look at the statistical performance of each of the Lions candidates makes for an ineresting team

www.walesonline.co.uk

Lions XV based on the Six Nations stats: Stuart Hogg; Anthony Watson; Elliot Daly, Robbie Henshaw, Duhan van der Merwe; Owen Farrell, Ali Price; Wyn Jones, Ken Owens, Tadhg Furlong; Jonny Hill, Alun Wyn Jones (C); Tadhg Beirne, Hamish Watson, Jack Conan.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Shows why stats are ****

 

[ncurd]

The Lions Test XV if Warren Gatland picked it entirely on stats

A look at the statistical performance of each of the Lions candidates makes for an ineresting team

www.walesonline.co.uk

Lions XV based on the Six Nations stats: Stuart Hogg; Anthony Watson; Elliot Daly, Robbie Henshaw, Duhan van der Merwe; Owen Farrell, Ali Price; Wyn Jones, Ken Owens, Tadhg Furlong; Jonny Hill, Alun Wyn Jones (C); Tadhg Beirne, Hamish Watson, Jack Conan.

Daly didn't play at center, Farrell didn't play at fly-half

This stat is crap for props minutes per scrum penalty conceded,

You want to go by penalties per scrum contested.

Wales Online as usual doesn't hold up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny.

 

[ncurd]

Shows why stats are ****

Nah shows why people are crap at interpreting stats.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Daly didn't play at center, Farrell didn't play at fly-half

This stat is crap for props minutes per scrum penalty conceded,

You want to go by penalties per scrum contested.

Wales Online as usual doesn't hold up to even 5 seconds of scrutiny.

Did you read it?

 

[ncurd]

"Ranking first in a statistic is worth three points, second is two points and third is one point. The points get tallied up and the player who finishes with the most points gets selected."

Yup cause all stats are worth the same, so select ******** stats, apply it to playing in different positions and give each stat equal weighting.

Result: ******** methodology, bollock answers.

 

[Dean Cooperfield-West]

Garbage in, garbage out. Proves why WalesOnline even makes for unacceptable bog roll

 

[Welsh Exile]

"Ranking first in a statistic is worth three points, second is two points and third is one point. The points get tallied up and the player who finishes with the most points gets selected."

Yup cause all stats are worth the same, so select ******** stats, apply it to playing in different positions and give each stat equal weighting.

Result: ******** methodology, bollock answers.

Jeez, you're no fun today.

I was referring to the fact they referenced the Daly and Farrell points you made but, yeah, I agree but it's just a bit of fun. It's still semi useful to know who performed in the stats they mention, though.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Garbage in, garbage out. Proves why WalesOnline even makes for unacceptable bog roll

This is true for the most part but they do the odd good piece here and there.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ah yes good old WOL, the rag that virtually never ranked their team worse than the opposition when comparing, except for the all blacks where they have the sense to rank their players 1 point less across the whole team.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Ah yes good old WOL, the rag that virtually never ranked their team worse than the opposition when comparing, except for the all blacks where they have the sense to rank their players 1 point less across the whole team.

Another barrel of laughs. I mean, they've just posted a team with no Welsh players in the backs and no Tipuric with Hill in the 2nd row. That must've hurt to be fair. Give them some credit.

 

[ncurd]

Jeez, you're no fun today.

I was referring to the fact they referenced the Daly and Farrell points you made but, yeah, I agree but it's just a bit of fun. It's still semi useful to know who performed in the stats they mention, though.

Because if they applied some real methodology and thonking instead of using the back of fag packet in an hour there might be an interesting discussion to be had.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Another barrel of laughs. I mean, they've just posted a team with no Welsh players in the backs and no Tipuric with Hill in the 2nd row. That must've hurt to be fair. Give them some credit.

Yeah but it wasn't based on their opinions, just a weird mulch of arbitrary stats. When it's actually the opinions of the editors they are laughably biased and one eyed. Any rag that frequently ranked their team only a tiny slither behind the all blacks despite having not beaten then in decades didn't deserve credit for producing other **** but with less bias.

It's the same in its non rugby parts, just a load of bottom feeder drivel.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Because if they applied some real methodology and thonking instead of using the back of fag packet in an hour there might be an interesting discussion to be had.

You do one and post it in here. I'll be interested to look at it and discuss.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I think a better way to phrase the thinking would the player of old not been able to adapt? Hill/Back would probably struggle the skillset asked of a flanker is much more. Lineouts have changed but its hard to see how a canny operator of the past wouldn't still be pretty good. Same with what is required of the Wings/Centers at the rucks they are getting involved but you wouldn't say any are really great at it so the ones of old could of probably adapted.

That's how I like to look at it. IMO, there are 3 levels of thinking on this question, which require increasing thought and guesswork:

1. Comparing like for like (i.e. older players are never as good as current players)
2. Comparing players to their peers (giving players who were head and shoulders above the competition a look in)
3. Estimating how previous players would have fared if they had the advantages of today's players in terms of coaching / support (fairest, but needs most guess work)

If you're thinking on level 3, it's hard to see why Martin Johnson wouldn't have been able to make the changes required, same for Richard Hill. I hesitate to say that Back may have been too small given that he disproved it during his career, but players are bigger again now and the advantages that being smaller brought him might be negated these days as everyone is freakishly athletic.

 

[Jakedood]

I think if they'd said something like " the most dynamic of teams possible" and used stats such as metres per carry, broken tackles per 80 etc to form something, it'd be cool

At least clarify it in some way like that

Edit

Looked this up, Daly broke 13 tackles in 332 mins of Rugby which aint too shabby, Same as Anthony Watson but with 60 less mins played

Curry broke as many tackles as Billy Vunipola (8)

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yeah but it wasn't based on their opinions, just a weird mulch of arbitrary stats. When it's actually the opinions of the editors they are laughably biased and one eyed. Any rag that frequently ranked their team only a tiny slither behind the all blacks despite having not beaten then in decades didn't deserve credit for producing other **** but with less bias.

It's the same in its non rugby parts, just a load of bottom feeder drivel.

I don't want to defend the position that the WOL is some unbiased, amazing objective media institution or nothing as I don't believe it is so I think we're largely in agreement.

They've definitely done a few head to heads other than NZ where they've ranked Wales less but it doesn't really matter or prove anything as you're right, they have a base they appeal to and from a rugby point of view they just churn out bollix after bollix but sometimes you get some alright stuff.

Just as in the same way that I hate the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc etc for similar reasons but occasionally they write something that I either think is decent or provides some kind of use even if it unimportant.

I expected a back lash for having the audacity to post a starting 15 based on stats from the WOL though. I apologise.

 

[Jakedood]

I don't want to defend the position that the WOL is some unbiased, amazing objective media institution or nothing as I don't believe it is so I think we're largely in agreement.

They've definitely done a few head to heads other than NZ where they've ranked Wales less but it doesn't really matter or prove anything as you're right, they have a base they appeal to and from a rugby point of view they just churn out bollix after bollix but sometimes you get some alright stuff.

Just as in the same way that I hate the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc etc for similar reasons but occasionally they write something that I either think is decent or provides some kind of use even if it unimportant.

I expected a back lash for having the audacity to post a starting 15 based on stats from the WOL though. I apologise.

Keep your filthy sheep loving trash off this site

Apparently Gatland wants to see how Sam Simmonds looks at centre in training camps

 

[ncurd]

You do one and post it in here. I'll be interested to look at it and discuss.

Can't be arsed it would take hours and I'm not being paid.

Seriously it took me 30mins earlier this year trying to calculate tackles per defensive minuite for 2nd rows (Didn't change much). Only to find it was a completely useless stat. Same with dominant tackles/tackle (way too low a percentage to matter).

A few year back I did a few hours on average kicking percentage to work out unless there like a 20% difference in a single match it's unlikely affect the result of any match.

So the first issue is find stats that actually mean something. That's before you find a bunch per position that are relevant. Repeat a bunch of times.

As noted too much work, I'll stick to scrutinising those people bring up and occasionally looking at stuff I think might be interesting as a one off.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Can't be arsed it would take hours and I'm not being paid.

Seriously it took me 30mins earlier this year trying to calculate tackles per defensive minuite for 2nd rows (Didn't change much). Only to find it was a completely useless stat. Same with dominant tackles/tackle (way too low a percentage to matter).

A few year back I did a few hours on average kicking percentage to work out unless there like a 20% difference in a single match it's unlikely affect the result of any match.

So the first issue is find stats that actually mean something. That's before you find a bunch per position that are relevant. Repeat a bunch of times.

As noted too much work, I'll stick to scrutinising those people bring up and occasionally looking at stuff I think might be interesting as a one off.

Yeah fair enough.

Weirdly, though, I don't actually hate that team (ignore the reasons why that team was picked or whatever) I don't love it but I would be quite interested to see how it goes. Maybe we'll see a similar team in a midweek match