Rugby Analysis

[goodNumber10]

got sent this by the guys at rugbydump, i think the guy who did the video is a subcontractor for sky or something - the software he's using, RTSW, is about £20,000 before licensing...

either way it's pretty interesting, and he raises some good england defence points.

[video=vimeo;111581992]https://vimeo.com/111581992[/video]

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

got sent this by the guys at rugbydump, i think the guy who did the video is a subcontractor for sky or something - the software he's using, RTSW, is about £20,000 before licensing...

either way it's pretty interesting, and he raises some good england defence points.

[video=vimeo;111581992]https://vimeo.com/111581992[/video]

if scotland is watching this were quids in

 

[Every Time Ref]

I guess Danny Care was trying something similar to what you were talking about with the Wallabies defense, looking to force a decision as he caught the ball and trusting his inside defense to cover his hole, only he judged it horribly wrong. The defense actually looked to be set up pretty nicely until he did that.

EDIT: Actually I counted wrong, I see the ABs had a two man overlap so I can see why he decided to take that risk, he just went far too early.

 

[goodNumber10]

Charlie Morgan looking at Englands defeat (disagree with him about the Farrell/Attwood moments):

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...five-moments-decided-england-vs-south-africa/

 

[psychic duck]

got sent this by the guys at rugbydump, i think the guy who did the video is a subcontractor for sky or something - the software he's using, RTSW, is about £20,000 before licensing...

either way it's pretty interesting, and he raises some good england defence points.

[video=vimeo;111581992]https://vimeo.com/111581992[/video]

£20,000 for what is really only tiny little 50 seconds clips on the TV broadcast seems a lot.

 

[goodNumber10]

£20,000 for what is really only tiny little 50 seconds clips on the TV broadcast seems a lot.

no 20,000 for the software, not the clip.

Been talking to him, he is a sub contractor as such for sky etc.... he just did that as he had some spare time.

 

[psychic duck]

no 20,000 for the software, not the clip.

Been talking to him, he is a sub contractor as such for sky etc.... he just did that as he had some spare time.

Still, never realised those analysis tools they used were so massively expensive. That's a lot to spend on a season's worth of Sean Holley's 'statpad' gibberish.

 

[goodNumber10]

yeah, it's steep. I looked into it all when i first started doing the videos, that's one of the cheaper ones.

That;s just a single licence, with server and support etc.... not even licenced for broadcast - it's more for that iirc.

 

[psychic duck]

yeah, it's steep. I looked into it all when i first started doing the videos, that's one of the cheaper ones.

That;s just a single licence, with server and support etc.... not even licenced for broadcast - it's more for that iirc.

It's a shame, as prices like that mean that kind of resource completely out of reach for anybody but a big organisation really, and if there was something at least approaching affordable on the market some people could make some interesting stuff and present it much clearer than just plain pictures, gifs or videos can.

 

[Every Time Ref]

http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/33006-Rugby-Analysis/page7

Interesting article ... thoughts? I'm undecided myself whether all this performance analysis is too much; it's tempting to conclude that England look overcoached and underspontaneous, but it also seems kind of kneejerk. When England won in 2003, the new superprofessional approach, the psychologists and vision coaches etc., were lauded as being a big part of the win. Maybe when the team wins it's good, and when they don't win it's bad? I'd also be interested in knowing how different countries' analytic approaches vary, see if we can see any patterns.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well proper Video Analysis really started with Wayne Smith. People occasionally looked at old games etc... then Wayne Smith picked up on a system invented by some spanish guy for football, got him to recode it for Rugby and viola, video Analysis was born.

Great little article on it here:
http://www.therugbysite.com/blog/le...nfluence-of-match-analysis-in-the-modern-game

I think it's both a help and a hindrance - i do small bits for the saturday afternoon pub team i coach, some guys love it, others hate how exposing it is. Same with fitness stats and tackles and carry counts.

Speaking to guys i know within the international set up it doesn't seem to vary massivley, a team of analysts disect the game form the day before give the coaches a cut.

then leading into the week they tend to do specific analysis on various elements of the game. Englands analysis team for example have a huge database, that say Dave Attwood can walk into the room and say i want to see Brodie Rettalicks Lineouts from the last four tests and they can bring them up - they won't do any overlays etc... but the footage is there for Attwood to look over and analyse himself.

i think most teams do that to a degree, but NZ probably do the least leaving ian forster to do a lot of it... he was the one who spotted the Eastmond weakness int he first test that New Zealand exploited in the 3rd.

 

[Every Time Ref]

To me what I'm less sure about than the video analysis is this "performance indicators" stuff, whatever it's called - the tracker in the back of the shirt which measures speed and distance run, the breaking down of statistical analyses to a microscopic level - basically the "Moneyball" approach. I found Moneyball really interesting and it's only natural to wonder how it might be applied to other sports, but at the time I felt it doesn't lend itself to rugby. I'm sure it has a role, but I do worry it is easy to get caught up in an obsession with quantifying everything. And what if you quantify it using the wrong formula? Actually, the other striking thing Moneyball showed was how for decades everyone involved in baseball had been using the wrong statistics (which didn't truly indicate a player's likely influence on the game), until Billy Bean came along. It's very possible t he same is happening in rugby. I've worked in a job before which involved a mathmatical analytical element (to analyse spending patterns in different types of retail within a geographical area) and it struck me how arbitrary it was. Someone at some point decided this nebulous concept needed quantifying; someone else made a formula that quantifies it; everyone starts using it so it's "industry standard"; young professionals coming in to the industry are taught that "this is how you analyse retail spending patterns"; everyone's doing it and it's all everyone has ever known. I remember asking about it when I was young and green. No-one could tell me where this formula had come from, including people who'd been working in the industry for 30 odd years. And no-one seemed to care either. So every report ever written uses this same formula, yet no-one knows where it came from - it literally could have been scrawled onto the back of a menu in a pub after a lunchtime meeting got a bit out of hand 40 years ago. This kind of thing happens so easily (as I said, it happened in baseball and stood for decades without being questioned) - how the hell do we know that the "Performance Indicators" Lancaster and other coaches use as standard have anything really useful to tell us about player performance?

The quality of life thing is a separate but interesting point. I love sport, but honestly, I believe I actually enjoy playing rugby or cricket for my team on a Saturday with mates than most professionals. I feel in the era of uber-professionalism a lot of elite athletes have forgotten that it's meant to be a hobby, at heart.

 

[goodNumber10]

Nothing to see

 

[Rugga-lad]

I'm aiming to become a coach, so rugby analysis is core to any coaching. Good job in starting this thread

 

[Pockets]

So, I'm playing around with opencv a bit at the moment. Is there anything that would be helpful to have automated, like stats etc

 

[theVersatile]

Very good analysis. Just thought I'd give a few points on the move.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1:27 - Poor catching attempt from Bowe, who knocks the ball on giving the Aussies scrum advantage; allowing them to take whatever risks needed.

1:30 - Bowe needlessly kicks the ball away, throwing away any chance they had at regaining possession. Regaining possession would've left Ireland with the ball inside the Aussie 22.

1:43 - Possible in from the side missed by the ref (though from his angle, it must of looked like the other player tumble rolled him)

2:13 - Kearney doesn't fill the space fast enough. If he'd been there quicker, he'd have Speight covered and the next Ireland player would've picked up Foley.

2:23 - Missed tackle from Kearney. Speight doesn't even have good feet to get around him. It's just a poor attempt at tackling.

2:29 - I'm not to sure if this is in the rules, but is that challenge on O'Connell not a penalty, since he's not a part of the ruck?

2:40 - Perfect example of Ireland not knowing when the counter ruck and when to stay out. The Aussie players know they've won the ball while Ireland pile all their numbers to try and regain possession or stall or stop the move. Ireland need to know when to stay out of the ruck and fill the gaps.

2:57 - Missed tackles. Had Sexton or whoever was before him made the tackle, Murray wouldn't of had to committed to the tackle leaving a giant gap.

Overall, it's Ireland's slowness and decision making which, in my opinion, gives away this try; though you can't say that Australia didn't work hard for it.
And this may have been answered already; but what software do you use for making these?

 

[goodNumber10]

Nothing to see

 

[Every Time Ref]

Good analysis .I've never understood why teams with a chance to clear their lines from inside the 22 cut down their options by running it out

 

[Every Time Ref]

#tryingtokeepthethreadgoing

Analysis from Rugby World of Burgess's first start in union:
http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...ampions-cup-player-analysis-sam-burgess-bath/

Overall I think probably a little more positive than warranted, it overplays his carrying effectiveness and glosses over the pretty serious issue of defensive positioning with one token example, but I tentatively agree with the overall conclusion that, for his level of experience, that was a damn good day at the office. My main gripe is that it doesn't acknowledge the real problem - that a half-decent novice played 80 minutes in front of arguably the form inside centre in the country, but I guess that wasn't the article's brief.

Putting aside the main issue - should he have been playing at all - I think his development was shown to be promising. His physicality in the tackle (when he gets it right) is a huge plus, and he's likely to increase the proportion he gets right rapidly, with practice and experience. His use as a decoy was also hugely encouraging, although I doubt many defences will fall for it quite so embarrassingly as that second try; also it's wrong to credit Burgess alone with creating that space when by far the biggest defensive misjudgement was the 13 haring out to take out Joseph ... as the ball practically passed behind his back.

The article does, however, pick up on a couple of little details, such as his rolling away from the tackle on Tulou, various simple but important ruck involvements, the rugby awareness to take over the nine role when cook was buried - this would be easy to miss as a plus point, since you just take it for granted from a rugby union player (and also, having determinedly avoided the temptation to just watch Burgess all game as I did, no-one can see everything one player does!), but it does represent promising progress. He wasn't penalised once for not rolling away, that is promising.

My main worry is the kicking. I gather he was never a kicker in league, so who has told him he needs to kick, or more worryingly why he has decided it for himself, I don't know. That's the only side of his game which seems to lack composure and basic intelligence, rather than an issue of learning the little details.

 

[goodNumber10]

Nothing to see