Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Sir Graham Henry criticises England approach
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Darwin" data-source="post: 477986" data-attributes="member: 24910"><p>Using some pretty pictures I will illustrate that there is indeed a correlation between adult playing number and success at the top level (basically confirming what the likes of <span style="color: #3E3E3E">gingergenius </span>have already stated<span style="color: #3E3E3E">)</span>:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]1630[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>This shows that as registered adult player numbers* increase, the IRB ranking points increase. For those who aren't statistically inclined, the r<sup>2 </sup>value basically represents the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (IRB Ranking points) that is explained by the independent variable (Registered adult player numbers). So a r<sup>2 </sup>value of 0.431 suggests that 43% of the variance in IRB Ranking points is determined by adult player numbers - the remaining 57% is controlled by other factors (Rugby structuring in the country, coaching etc). The fact the the best correlation is logrithmic (a curve that tapers off) rather than linear (a straight line) suggests that once you get past a certain number of playing numbers, adding more players players doesn't substantially affect your ranking points. If we look at the outlying data points on the graph we see that New Zealand and Australia are doing much better than would be expected if ranking points were purely determined by adult playing numbers, while Japan and USA are doing substantially worse (and everyone else in the top 20 isn't too far off what would be expected..).</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]1631[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Right, now I've probably gone and thoroughly confused everyone I'm going to go water-blast the house before the Sevens starts in a few hours <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*taken from <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> - I have no idea of the accuracy or otherwise of these numbers....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Darwin, post: 477986, member: 24910"] Using some pretty pictures I will illustrate that there is indeed a correlation between adult playing number and success at the top level (basically confirming what the likes of [COLOR=#3E3E3E]gingergenius [/COLOR]have already stated[COLOR=#3E3E3E])[/COLOR]: [ATTACH]1630.vB[/ATTACH] This shows that as registered adult player numbers* increase, the IRB ranking points increase. For those who aren't statistically inclined, the r[SUP]2 [/SUP]value basically represents the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (IRB Ranking points) that is explained by the independent variable (Registered adult player numbers). So a r[SUP]2 [/SUP]value of 0.431 suggests that 43% of the variance in IRB Ranking points is determined by adult player numbers - the remaining 57% is controlled by other factors (Rugby structuring in the country, coaching etc). The fact the the best correlation is logrithmic (a curve that tapers off) rather than linear (a straight line) suggests that once you get past a certain number of playing numbers, adding more players players doesn't substantially affect your ranking points. If we look at the outlying data points on the graph we see that New Zealand and Australia are doing much better than would be expected if ranking points were purely determined by adult playing numbers, while Japan and USA are doing substantially worse (and everyone else in the top 20 isn't too far off what would be expected..). [ATTACH]1631.vB[/ATTACH] Right, now I've probably gone and thoroughly confused everyone I'm going to go water-blast the house before the Sevens starts in a few hours :cool: *taken from [URL="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg"]here[/URL] - I have no idea of the accuracy or otherwise of these numbers.... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Sir Graham Henry criticises England approach
Top