• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Rugby Match Statistics


Those are stats from the IRB and Jake White. If you like the search functions so much why not try these and do some research?
http://www.google.co.za/search?q=ne...GYHk4QSb0YDtCg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=873

Why not try to contribute something useful to the threads rather than trying to start a smear campaign post after post looking for a reaction or to instigate a flame war? But I guess it probably make your cock feel bigger doing it.
 
Those are stats from the IRB and Jake White. If you like the search functions so much why not try these and do some research?
http://www.google.co.za/search?q=ne...GYHk4QSb0YDtCg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=873

Why not try to contribute something useful to the threads rather than trying to start a smear campaign post after post looking for a reaction or to instigate a flame war? But I guess it probably make your cock feel bigger doing it.

Oh, the irony :lol:
 


They all broke off from Pangea, at some stage, I've never seen the different between the size of one island and the other. The continent is called Oceania, and encompasses New Zealand. In any case, this is completely beside the point. If you'd just said it was an impressive feat due to their small population at the beginning as opposed to that silly island comment I wouldn't have to deal with this baffonery.


I hate to nit-pick but geography and geology are interests of mine and I'd like to clarify a point or two.

Most smaller islands did not form part of the earth's original crust and have formed due to volcanic activity due to an ever expand earth albeit EXTREMELY gradual. Australia is a continent. The region is called Oceania. NZ etc does not actually form part of the continent and the island, including new Caledonia etc formed through volcanic activity. They are called Oceania only for purposes of wanting to include them all in 1 region for whatever reason (conveying news, sports divisions etc.) but this does not make Oceania a continent.

The theory of Pan-Gaea - a super continent that split up over time- is in the process of being revised though probably only our grandchildren will probably not learn BS in schools regarding this. The newer theory is that the Earth was smaller and the major landmasses we call continents were all linked on all sides with the entire Earth covered in water. This means that the landmasses when cooled down formed an essentially seamless submerged landmass that got broken up as the Earth swelled over time like any object in suspension does. The water then 'filled the gaps' so to speak with some new islands popping up because of the volcanic activity. Other facts backing the theory are the the ridgelines of the seas bottom indicating this expansion rather than the old 'drift' theory as well as the ages of sequential ridges getting older the nearer you get to the centre l ine between continents. Add to that the fact that the Geographic make-up of the landmasses (in shape and geologicl make-up) across the Pacific ocean align just as do those across from the Indian ocean and Atlantic ocean etc and you get the idea.

Also, no-one is suggesting that NZ doesn't have a great rugby team. SA are a great team as well. So is Ireland, Australia, England and all the rest. Why can't we all.. just get along?
 
Hi All,

I am a newbee here.

I came searching for information on where can I find match-level statistics on as many rugby games as possible (current, archive - all of them). Can someone of you experts point me to some resources?

Thanks so much!
SoSo

Just to address the original question (for a change :) ):

If you are interested in individual players statistics (I'm not sure if you want player or team stats) a good place to try is verusco.com. They are a NZ based company that provide players stats for all ITM Cup games, Super Rugby games, and many Internationals....
 
Actually I'm familier with the theory you outline, and it enjoys all the scientific credibility of homeopathy, without wanting to be too blunt about it.
Much of the land in NZ was pushed off the East Coast of Australia and sat in a shallow ocean trench for a few million years before being rent up out of the sea as the plate flexed.

Not that this matters in the least, the idea of treating Oceania as a continent is still a bit silly.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you're really grasping the concept of irony

Thank you for that. You did your friends proud. Next

Just to address the original question (for a change :) ):

If you are interested in individual players statistics (I'm not sure if you want player or team stats) a good place to try is verusco.com. They are a NZ based company that provide players stats for all ITM Cup games, Super Rugby games, and many Internationals....
Verusco have restricted access to the NZ data. Only data they provide to people requesting it is from a 9 year old computer program with huge errors. Which off course can be fixed if you have the program and some knowledge in coding.
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm familier with the theory you outline, and it enjoys all the scientific credibility of homeopathy, without wanting to be too blunt about it.
Much of the land in NZ was pushed off the East Coast of Australia and sat in a shallow ocean trench for a few million years before being rent up out of the sea as the plate flexed.

Not that this matters in the least, the idea of treating Oceania as a continent is still a bit silly.

Do you have any material on the matter? I'd love to read more about it either whichway the arguments go. In the articles I saw it came across as quite conclusive and VERY convincing though I read up on these things only at and for leisure which I am somehow seeming to get less and less time for.
 
Regarding statistics.... well you can gain much from them but its just too easy to oversimplify things and make broad conclusions if you rely too heavily on them. Particularly in rugby which is a much more complex game. For many of the USA dominated sports which are more stop-start in nature and with more absolute determinable outcomes/goals stats count for a lot more. I wouldn't be too bothered about stats in rugby other than win/loss and points for/against LOL.
 
Regarding statistics.... well you can gain much from them but its just too easy to oversimplify things and make broad conclusions if you rely too heavily on them. Particularly in rugby which is a much more complex game. For many of the USA dominated sports which are more stop-start in nature and with more absolute determinable outcomes/goals stats count for a lot more. I wouldn't be too bothered about stats in rugby other than win/loss and points for/against LOL.

Did you know In the 2004 Tri Nations South Africa used far more open play kicks and kicked at a far greater rate than New Zealand and Australia, yet they scored more tries than their opponents combined?
 
Because 12 pages ISN'T ENOUGH.

Did you know it's a statistical fact that England are the bestest most runningest most passingest most tryscoringest team ever?
 
Because 12 pages ISN'T ENOUGH.

Did you know it's a statistical fact that England are the bestest most runningest most passingest most tryscoringest team ever?

See here we go. They jump stark raving mad how can a guy say South Africa scored so many tries whara whara whara. Out of the woodwork like roaches.

See OP another example of one that do not know or bother to look how a team plays. Because if he bothered with it he would known South Africa used a greater amount of kicking rather than denying the opposition the ball and scored more tries from turnovers rather than by advancing by maintaining continuity. They prefer to wait for turnover possession to attack from, rather than attack from conventional forms of possession. By kicking the ball away they did not have the aim of maintaining continuity by denying the opposition the ball.

But he decided to jump on his bike without really thinking why.
 
Because if he bothered with it he would known South Africa used a greater amount of kicking

I stopped reading here, as you appear to be agreeing with everyones point about the Springboks and their boring rugby!
 
Because 12 pages ISN'T ENOUGH.

Did you know it's a statistical fact that England are the bestest most runningest most passingest most tryscoringest team ever?

Olyy that can't be true. Every1 nos Ireland kicks ass and no 1 in the whole wide world is bester. Its true cause I won the WC in RWC + RC....on hard!
 
Did you know In the 2004 Tri Nations South Africa used far more open play kicks and kicked at a far greater rate than New Zealand and Australia, yet they scored more tries than their opponents combined?

You don't have to convert me. I'm all for good tactical kicking. Problem is our player/coaching staff have forgotten what that actually is. I hoped it was only PdV but against England most of our our kicks were just plain terrible and pointless.
 
Did you know In the 2004 Tri Nations South Africa used far more open play kicks and kicked at a far greater rate than New Zealand and Australia, yet they scored more tries than their opponents combined?

I do remember that actually, I remember it because it's the only Tri Nations ever won where the champion lost as many games as they won. Just an interesting little fact for you.

There's a quote I quite enjoy: "A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion", reminded me of you.
 

Latest posts

Top