1st5R: Rating Super Rugby's playmakers - week seven; by Ben Strang | Rugby Forum

Just_win

Captain18,570 posts

Just_winCaptain18,570 posts

31 Mar 2015, 09:34

31 Mar 2015, 09:34#1

"We know how each other play, we know what makes each other tick. We're not afraid to say something if s Round seven of the 2015 Super Rugby season is one to forget for first-fives.

For the first time all season, the overall performances of men wearing 10 were below par as judged by the 1st5R formula.

The 1st5R formula, created by Stephen Ryan, factors in linebreaks made and assisted, tries scored and assisted, defenders beaten, running metres per carry, tackling success, turnovers and goal kicking, while also taking into account minutes played and number of touches.

A rating of 50 is a par performance, with the scale running from 0 to 100.

This week only four of the 14 first-fives rated scored over 50 using the formula, three of whom were New Zealanders.

But it was returning Australian first-five Quade Cooper who had the top score with a 58.21 1st5R in a loss to the Lions.

As expected with Cooper's running game, he broke through the line twice and beat three defenders, while crucially keeping his turnovers at zero throughout the 80 minutes.

Lima Sopoaga, Daniel Carter and James Marshall were the other players to score over 50.

Each player was solid but unspectacular in round seven, with Sopoaga (56.60 1st5R) the pick of the bunch in a big win over the Stormers.

Carter (55.91 1st5R) returned to the 10 jersey in a loss to the Bulls in South Africa, while Marshall (50.98 1st5R) stepped in for a resting Beauden Barrett in yet another Hurricanes win.

Chiefs pivot Aaron Cruden scored a 42.25 1st5R in a win over the Cheetahs in Hamilton on Saturday night, with three turnovers a key reason he didn't score better.

Cruden was back to his best with the boot, kicking seven from seven from the tee.

Dan Bowden was a first time starter for the Blues against the Waratahs but had a tough day at the office, scoring only 34.71 in the Blues sixth loss on the trot.

Sopoaga continues to lead the 1st5R standings after week seven with a season score of 69.86, but his skills will be tested after a week eight bye.

Five of the Highlanders first six matches have been under the roof in Dunedin, providing perfect conditions for rugby.

The Highlanders play only three of their final 10 matches under the roof, with the rest out on the road and in the elements.

Cruden is the next best Kiwi first-five with a 65.03 1st5R for the season.

Bernard Foley (64.51 1st5R) and Handre Pollard (62.64 1st5R) remain the top first-fives in Australia and South Africa respectively.

- Stuff

Just_win

Captain18,570 posts

Just_winCaptain18,570 posts

31 Mar 2015, 09:41

31 Mar 2015, 09:41#2

Lambie recieved a rating of 63.64 for the season so far so Lambie and Pollard are rated highly.
Carter will only get better. Cruden as a rating of 65.03 so although he had a average round in week 7 because of turnovers he is still doing well overall for the season.

clevermike

Coach57,555 posts

clevermikeCoach57,555 posts

01 Apr 2015, 10:19

01 Apr 2015, 10:19#3

A top flyhalf will always be rated over 50 as I read the situation - with some variations as to scores in individual matches depending on the opposition and the team performance.
I am intrigued by the rating of Carter in the Bulls game. The kicking at goal was as follows:-
Carter - 1 try conversion, 4 penaltiesPollard - 2 try conversions, 4 penalties
He did better than Pollard in kicking at goal - but for the rest he virtually never took contact either in ball carries and in defense.
Carter did not miss a kick at goal - Pollard missed 1 penalty kick from very far out and one try conversion.
Carter made one break beating one defender and he off-loaded one ball in contact. On the negative side he caused 2 ball possession losses - one of which ended up in a try being scored by the opposition - while his tackle stats were lower than those of Pollard.
In essence - does one line break bearing one defender and one off-load - mean he got more than 16 points in the rating more than for instance Pollard? I do not think so - it seems to me this kind of rating by a newspaper reporter tends to play up to local media sales.
I think that for instance the rating of Cruden at 65,03 is also inflated. He had one brilliant game against the Stormers - after 4 very average performances and even an average performance against the Cheetahs. He missed one game altogether - so five average games and one brilliant one and he gets 65,03 points. How is that possible? It should also be borne in mind that there were severe criticism of Cruden in the NZ media before the Stormers game.
I like this kind of theoretical treatise - but think it is in the main to increase reader popularity.

Ceradyne

Pro9,374 posts

CeradynePro9,374 posts

01 Apr 2015, 11:54

01 Apr 2015, 11:54#4

I would like to see this magic formula first .

Ceradyne

Pro9,374 posts

CeradynePro9,374 posts

01 Apr 2015, 14:18

01 Apr 2015, 14:18#5

I tried to find out exactly how this mysterious 1st5R works. I was curious to see what is evaluated and how. This is what I found, as explained by the person who developed it:
1. "Hi everyone, Stephen Ryan here the formula's creator,
Glad to see you guys (mostly) like it, if you have any questions about 1st5R I'll be happy to answer them or you can find me on twitter @1st5R.

My aim with this was to generate debate about who should wear the All Blacks number 10 Jersey at the rugby world cup considering Carter, Barrett, Slade and Cruden are all really good options, but it works well for keeping tabs on 10s from other teams that you might not get to see the games of."
2. (A response to no 1, above) "it's a nice piece of analysis, but it is difficult to quantify performance, do you mind sharing a bit about how the marks are assigned?"
3. (Reply to no 2, above). Its a scale from 1-100 where 50 is (approximately) the average score based on the average stats of the 252 40+ minute super rugby games played by 1st 5's in 2014. So if a player gets the average stats, he gets a score of 50, gets more than average its above 50, if he gets less its below. (Side note, in the early running of 2015, average stats across the board are down from 2014)
There are 11 categories a player can contribute to his overall rating, tries, running, line breaks, turnovers, tackling, goal kicking (not included obviously for players like Matt Toomua), territory kicking, possession kicking, kick errors, attacking work rate and defensive work rate. Each category is broken down into different stats has a different weighting to match its overall impact on the game, (My own note....This, IMO, is a big red light. The moment that you start playing around with weighted values, in stats, it starts becoming a bit scary. Who decides those weights and how are they decided?)e.g. tries/try assists are worth more than line breaks/assists. Each category has a minimum and maximum amount of points, so a player who only does one thing, but does that one thing brilliantly he won't get a brilliant score. If someone scores 6 tries in 7 games, but misses 40% of his tackles and 50% of his kicks it's going to balance back down to average.

The stats it takes into account are minutes played, tries, try assists, total touches, number of runs, metres run, line breaks, line break assists, defenders beaten, turnovers, tackles made, tackles missed, kicks made, kicks missed, (territory kick metres, number of territory kicks, possession kick metres, possession kicks, number of penalty kicks to touch, and kick errors).

The bracketed stats require difficult and unique stat collection and so aren't included for super rugby, so you'll notice that an excellent out of hand kicking game, like the one Sias Ebersohn had in the forces win over the Waratahs in round one won't rate as highly as they should. (See my notes above. He already acknowledges flaws in the formula. There is another flaw but more on that later.) That's purely financial decision and if it were up to me those stats would be included. If the public get out and support and it becomes financially viable, then it will get added back in later on.
4. (A response to no 3, above). "that's brilliant thanks, makes perfect sense.
How do you code the games, i presume that's manually done on a visual watch through?

And how many watches does a game get?

Sorry, don't' mean to ask for all your secrets, just find this fascinating as find coding accurately the hardest part of analysis."
5. (And this red light response to no 4, above) "It is done by a manual watch, but not by me. Fairfax media (the ones that have the rights to it for Super Rugby) have the connections to the statisticians so its all run through them. So sorry but I can't be of much help to you on that one."

6. (And then, with this question and reply, we come back to my concern about the weighted values that I referred to in no 3, above.): Question: "Thanks for the replies Stephen. Do you think you'll roll this out for other positions too eventually? I like that you have it rooted back to averages, would make someones score relatively comparable against another position e.g. this centre is 60 (i.e. 10 points better than average) compared to a lock at 45 (ie 5 points worse than average). Really interesting stuff.
I guess there is some subjectivity around how each stat is weighted, for example I don't think tries are that important for certain positions as you could just be catching the ball and falling over and that probably gives you a fair few points. Then again tries are what actually affect the game the most."
Reply: "I'd love to roll it out for other positions but 1st5R has to prove there's an audience for it first, if it can do that (share it with your rugby loving mates) then the next logical position would be full backs and then we'll go from there.

There is, my own and a couple of fairfax reporter's, subjectivity for the weighting and at the moment I would say its biased towards 1st 5s who get the ball in the red zone often, as opposed to 1st 5s who get their team to the red zone then let their forwards score tries or draw penalties. Though arguing which way is better to score a try would take a month of Sundays as it has so many different factors from the strength of the forwards, to the defence to the preference of the coach. (My own notes. He is effectively saying that it is a scientifically designed thumbsuck.)

You're right different positions demand different weightings, e.g. Victor Matfield's lineout prowess destroyed the All Blacks in the late 2000's without scoring (if I recall correctly) any tries. It's reasonably easy to give a high score for a good try over a fall over the line, e.g. Julian Savea's effort against the Force this weekend just gone had him break two tackles and run 50 metres. He'd get points for the touch, try, beating defenders and a long run, compared to Cory Jane's try where he caught the ball and ran all of 2 metres, he'd only get points for the try, 2 metre run and a touch."

I have mentioned in my notes that, IMO, there is another flaw in the formula. I found that in one of the remarks to an article where "the formula" was mentioned for, from what I can gather, for the first time. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/64479483/A-formula-to-help-Steve-Hansen-solve-the-All-Black-No-10-conundrum
This was the remark/comment:
A load of codswallop! Where in this formula does it rate match management, decision making...or allow for carry vs kick, vision, work rate that goes unnoticed ( such as backing up), the quality of the opposition, injury, carrying to the line, restarts, ground conditions....you could go on all day mentioning things that go to make up a first five....or any player. Potential, player management.... Let's throw in good looks and commercial viability! Journos doodling. Can't see this system being of help to Hansen. I'd be questioning the credentials of a 'sports scientist's who took more than a few minutes to think this one up!

I assume the above is the in addition to the other stuff that, on its own and according to the designer of the formula, would take "a month of Sundays......". A load of codswallop! Where in this formula does it rate match management, decision making...or allow for carry vs kick, vision, work rate that goes unnoticed ( such as backing up), the quality of the opposition, injury, carrying to the line, restarts, ground conditions....you could go on all day mentioning things that go to make up a first five....or any player. Potential, player management.... Let's throw in good looks and commercial viability! Journos doodling. Can't see this system being of help to Hansen. I'd be questioning the credentials of a 'sports scientist's who took more than a few minutes to think this one up!

1st5R: Rating Super Rugby's playmakers - week seven; by Ben Strang

More from Rugby

More news