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
Rugby World Cup 2023
What is the best XV of the group stages, according to statistics?
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="RugbynExcel" data-source="post: 1161855" data-attributes="member: 87866"><p>Thank you for your reply</p><p></p><p>There are indeed a lot of All Blacks in the second places of the ranking.</p><p>Here's what the substitutes' bench looks like for this team:</p><p></p><p>C. Taylor - 42.6 pts</p><p>T. Francis - 33.1 pts</p><p>G. Thomas - 32.7 pts</p><p>A. Fakatava - 40.8 pts</p><p>A. Savea - 46.1 pts</p><p>C. Ollivon - 43.9 pts</p><p>W. Jordan - 43.5 pts</p><p>B. Barrett - 42.0 pts</p><p></p><p>Defining a team's profile (in terms of individual and collective performance) on the basis of this data alone is complex and the results must be interpreted very carefully.</p><p>Here is a table showing the average score of the players per team as well as the standard deviation of the scores</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]18288[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>It is quite clear which teams came out on top in the group stages and which struggled to compete with the others. </p><p>However, several results seem surprising at first glance: </p><p>-Portugal's relatively high ranking compared with their position in the group</p><p>-The low ranking of Argentina and South Africa, despite being second in their group.</p><p></p><p>How do you explain that? In Portugal's case, there were some players who really stood out (I'm thinking of Martins, Simoes, Marques, Storti and Tadjer, for example). But in view of their match, it would be a mistake to explan their fine performances with the play of just a few of them, given how impressive their cohesion was. </p><p></p><p>For Argentina and South Africa, their results can be explained more by the absence of players who clearly shone through with their individual performances, unlike teams like New Zealand or France, but also by the absence of players who played poorly. These are teams where the performances were homogeneous, as shown by the standard deviation of the scores. In short, everyone played well, but no one was incredible. The same goes for Ireland</p><p>These teams have also played matches where the game has remained very tight (I'm thinking of England-Argentina and Ireland-South Africa), which have therefore not been very productive in terms of statistics. I haven't found any data on the average effective playing time of these teams during the World Cup, but if it was low, that could also be a possible explanation.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind that this only concerns matches played in the group stages. I'll be doing a similar analysis once the World Cup is over, and the results will probably change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RugbynExcel, post: 1161855, member: 87866"] Thank you for your reply There are indeed a lot of All Blacks in the second places of the ranking. Here's what the substitutes' bench looks like for this team: C. Taylor - 42.6 pts T. Francis - 33.1 pts G. Thomas - 32.7 pts A. Fakatava - 40.8 pts A. Savea - 46.1 pts C. Ollivon - 43.9 pts W. Jordan - 43.5 pts B. Barrett - 42.0 pts Defining a team's profile (in terms of individual and collective performance) on the basis of this data alone is complex and the results must be interpreted very carefully. Here is a table showing the average score of the players per team as well as the standard deviation of the scores [ATTACH type="full"]18288[/ATTACH] It is quite clear which teams came out on top in the group stages and which struggled to compete with the others. However, several results seem surprising at first glance: -Portugal's relatively high ranking compared with their position in the group -The low ranking of Argentina and South Africa, despite being second in their group. How do you explain that? In Portugal's case, there were some players who really stood out (I'm thinking of Martins, Simoes, Marques, Storti and Tadjer, for example). But in view of their match, it would be a mistake to explan their fine performances with the play of just a few of them, given how impressive their cohesion was. For Argentina and South Africa, their results can be explained more by the absence of players who clearly shone through with their individual performances, unlike teams like New Zealand or France, but also by the absence of players who played poorly. These are teams where the performances were homogeneous, as shown by the standard deviation of the scores. In short, everyone played well, but no one was incredible. The same goes for Ireland These teams have also played matches where the game has remained very tight (I'm thinking of England-Argentina and Ireland-South Africa), which have therefore not been very productive in terms of statistics. I haven't found any data on the average effective playing time of these teams during the World Cup, but if it was low, that could also be a possible explanation. Keep in mind that this only concerns matches played in the group stages. I'll be doing a similar analysis once the World Cup is over, and the results will probably change. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
What is the best XV of the group stages, according to statistics?
Top