Six Nations 2013: Player ratings analysis

As regular readers of the blog will know, after every round of fixtures we produce player ratings for every player from the home nations. At the end of this year’s tournament, we thought it would be interesting to do some analysis of these ratings. It wasn’t terribly complicated – we worked out the average score for each team each week, then put them in a snazzy graph (which should appear below – if it doesn’t, just refresh your page) to show how the teams had progressed as the tournament went on.

FusionCharts XT will load here!

It is, thankfully, largely indicative of how the teams actually played. England started strongly before fading and then capitulating on the final weekend. Wales basically went the other way, and ended with comfortably the performance of the tournament. Ireland started well before falling alarmingly off the pace – something which, unsurprisingly, coincided with their dire injury situation after week two. Scotland didn’t really show a trend, but did perform pretty well in weeks two and three, before returning to their normal average fare the rest of the time.

What do you make of the stats? Are they indicative of how the championship unfolded?

7 thoughts on “Six Nations 2013: Player ratings analysis

  1. “It is, thankfully, largely indicative of how the teams actually played.”

    Woe betide that player scores for a match were not indicative of how the team played, otherwise those player scores would be rather pointless…

  2. I think personally it understates it alot. I did a tally up





    Yet….wales were the only team to win 4games by 10+ points, nearest to them being england with 2 games 10+, so based on scoring margin’s it seems to lack alot.

    The only thing the graph tells me is was a fairly “average” tournament at best. It also shows us that Ireland & Scotland where the best of the 4 two weeks each, which is a little odd considering they only recorded 4 victories only 1 of them was a huge margin (Scotland v Italy +24pts second highest in the tournament).

    So i dont think it really show’s much. I think the better teams got somewhat “punished” earlier in the tournament despite good performances.

  3. I think Week 4 may have something to do with it as well. It seemed that Wales were marked ‘down’ for their 10 point win against Scotland, whereas Ireland were scored ‘up’ for their draw at home to France (which in truth was a match Ireland should’ve won, but let slip). Brighty went a bit apoplectic about it in the comments :-)

    I think Joubert may have influenced the scoring due to his constant start stopping of the Sco v Wal match.

    A 10 point win in Murrayfield should be considered a great result. To compare, in Englands last 4 visits there they’ve only managed 1 win which was a 6 – 13 win last year.

  4. I think it’s a pretty good indicator – and it’s a lovely little graph!
    However, can you do a little more analysis, and tell us, for instance, if there were winning and losing performances worthy of the same ratings from any player / team?
    And how you guarantee there is consistency between the analysts, and their emotions, awarding the points?
    Sorry if it’s a bit mathematical, but the people have a right to know!!!

  5. you’ll hate me for saying this but ireland are the only team that beat wales. and that happened before a spate of injuries. france could only beat scotland with moat of their best players available. i do believe wales were the best team which is a great return considering their poor form prior to the tournament. i would have primarily eelsh players in the team wih halfpenny and warburton as sure spots. wyn jones north feleteau cuthbert.. the list goes on. u feel gatland is always with them these days (miracle of telepresence) & they have the players.

  6. I know this blog is mostly for UK (and to a lesser extent Ireland) based readers but this chart/graph needs France and Italy to be truly representative of the 6 Nations.

  7. I would say that most of the nations have a pretty fair curve.

    I agree with th regressive nature of the English curve. However I do have a few issues with they way that the scoring seems to have occurred for England.

    Take the average scores for the teams as an indication of the team performance. England averaged; (figures used are rough estimates based on the graph, not actually averages)
    Roughly 7.5 at home to Scotland. (Win)
    6.7 away to Ireland. (Win)
    6.5 at home to France. (Win)
    6.0 at home to Italy. (Win)
    4.9 away to Wales. (Loss)

    Firstly I think an average score of 4.9 is a little harsh on the overall rating vs Wales. After all, that welsh team scored an average of 8.1 (the highest that we saw in the tournament). Similarly an away win in Dublin warrants a 0.7 better performance than a home struggle past Italy.

    Scotland overall average was 6.32. 2 wins -9 points difference.
    Ireland was 6.24. 1 win 1 draw -9 points difference.
    Wales was 6.82. 4 wins +56 points difference.
    England was 6.36. 4 wins +16 points difference.

    Based on the stats, surely it could be argued that the ratings for England are a bit harsh. After all, they finished 2nd and taking away the 54 point swing in the points difference (-27 for +27 against) they would have been a lot closer to Wales in contention for the title. I think that Wales are fully deserving of their score, but surely an English score would need to be higher for the overall performance in the tournament?

Comments are closed.