Ulster vs Leinster: Saturday 28th, 18.30 (BBC & Sky)

[Raydollard]

Gibson Park looked good after he arrived but his form has dipped a lot. Luke plays on a different level and is our best SH.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Gibson Park looked good after he arrived but his form has dipped a lot. Luke plays on a different level and is our best SH.

actually never thought I'd agree with you your Ray, but yeah McGrath is head and shoulders above JGP

[blockhead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDjSV0kPvoM&t=11s

Man I tell ye, Sean O'Brien looks as fit as I seen him in a long time. Bet me left testicle he misses the Exeter games.

[molloyjh]

Yes- I'm for real in finding just half (2) of the total documented missed tackles- and in those I did note, not seeing them as being what I would regard as classical/ obvious missed tackles. There may be four missed tackles- but I neither noted that number at the time live- nor on re-watching the recording. So, yes- I do question the methodology on that basis- not just in the case of JGP, but more generally if this is how we partly judge players. Now maybe I missed the tackles- and I'm happy to accept that if it's pointed out to me where they are on the tape. Feel free if you wish. But in any case my OVERALL view remains that JGP played pretty well (some errors, of course) - and nothing on the tape changed that view- as of now.

So, while I certainly don't discount stats, I'm not a data/ 'money ball' zealot and I like to have claims based on those metric sources explained to me, where I have trouble observing it in the actual play. That is my focus here- the definitions of stat actions, not the eternal Luke/ Jamison debate.

As someone who has spent a sizeable portion of their career to date working with data and reports I'd be one of the first to say stats on their own have the potential to tell you everything, nothing or completely the wrong thing depending on their content and context. Nobody should take bare stats alone as a guideline for most things, let alone something like rugby. Add into that the fact that ESPN are notoriously unreliable in that department and any conclusions based solely on the stats they produce are likely to be hugely flawed.

Missed tackles are often the perfect example of a bad use of stats. Two players could attempt the same number of tackles and miss the same numbers. Yet one could have delivered a far better defensive performance than the other. Being out of position and unable to even attempt a tackle may boost one players stats, while kick chasing up and unders that have gone too far may bring down another players stats. The only way that stats are meaningful is if they are presented with context. We have to observe the actual play and frame any discussion of stats within that, not separate to it.

Just like pundits have been banging on about our defensive issues lately due to our missed tackle stats, while wholly ignoring the results of our defensive system (we're currently the second best defence in the league with the same tries conceded as Scarlets, but less points overall), the stats don't tell the full story. They rarely, if ever, do.

[Oldschool]

Yes- I'm for real in finding just half (2) of the total documented missed tackles- and in those I did note, not seeing them as being what I would regard as classical/ obvious missed tackles. There may be four missed tackles- but I neither noted that number at the time live- nor on re-watching the recording. So, yes- I do question the methodology on that basis- not just in the case of JGP, but more generally if this is how we partly judge players. Now maybe I missed the tackles- and I'm happy to accept that if it's pointed out to me where they are on the tape. Feel free if you wish. But in any case my OVERALL view remains that JGP played pretty well (some errors, of course) - and nothing on the tape changed that view- as of now.

So, while I certainly don't discount stats, I'm not a data/ 'money ball' zealot and I like to have claims based on those metric sources explained to me, where I have trouble observing it in the actual play. That is my focus here- the definitions of stat actions, not the eternal Luke/ Jamison debate.

As someone who has spent a sizeable portion of their career to date working with data and reports I'd be one of the first to say stats on their own have the potential to tell you everything, nothing or completely the wrong thing depending on their content and context. Nobody should take bare stats alone as a guideline for most things, let alone something like rugby. Add into that the fact that ESPN are notoriously unreliable in that department and any conclusions based solely on the stats they produce are likely to be hugely flawed.

Missed tackles are often the perfect example of a bad use of stats. Two players could attempt the same number of tackles and miss the same numbers. Yet one could have delivered a far better defensive performance than the other. Being out of position and unable to even attempt a tackle may boost one players stats, while kick chasing up and unders that have gone too far may bring down another players stats. The only way that stats are meaningful is if they are presented with context. We have to observe the actual play and frame any discussion of stats within that, not separate to it.

Just like pundits have been banging on about our defensive issues lately due to our missed tackle stats, while wholly ignoring the results of our defensive system (we're currently the second best defence in the league with the same tries conceded as Scarlets, but less points overall), the stats don't tell the full story. They rarely, if ever, do.

+1