19 thoughts on “Six Nations 2013: Round 3 most important stats

    1. You’re as eagle-eyed as us, Dale. If you look at the bottom there’s an ‘NB’, and an amended version is on it’s way (we didn’t make it).

  1. I read from other sources that Launchbury made 15 tackles, and Robshaw made 17. Are the above stats wrong or are the previous stats I read wrong?

    1. Launchbury did make 15 (so I suppose he is joint third with Ryan Jone), but Robshaw didn’t make 17. I’m not sure how many he did make, but these are coming from Accenture so they’ll be accurate.

  2. Brown, Tipuric, Robshaw – all leading the tackle counts. It kind of reinforces another recent discussion about open-sides, and the way we play in the North.

    I would be amazed if McCaw and Pocock come anywhere near this level of tackles during a game.

  3. Don’t know if you read this but Robshaws not up there. Also McCaw makes a ridiculous amount of tackles .

    1. Yes I did read it, and took the liberty of including Robshaw as someone who demonstrably ended up high in the tackle count because it fitted the theme of my comment above – even if he wasn’t in the top 3 individuals across the the six teams.

      It is not a criticism of McCaw by the way (far from it), just a reference to differing styles of play.

  4. Is it just me who finds this explosion of stats in rugby almost completely pointless?

    Unlike American football, where the stats are highly relevant due to the yard by yard nature of the sport, rugby cannot be summarised by a bunch of numbers.

    Even worse, the BBC now trots out meaningless numbers in place of intelligent analysis.

    6 carries for 73yds is all very well but doesn’t show that Keith Earls failed miserably to put a team mate in for a try at the end of one of them.

    Scott Johnson sums it up best: ‘Stats are like bikinis, they let you see a lot but not the whole thing’

      1. I completely agree with this. Stats can completely mislead. I kept seeing stats about how many yards Mike Brown was making; but it only takes one catch from deep that he runs back and that makes him an extra 30 yards on his stats!

        Also, the first weekend of the six nations I saw raving reviews from Irish forwards as I think the top five tacklers that weekend came from the Irish pack. All that tells me is Wales had a lot of ball in the last 20 and run it in the right; whereas they tried to paint it as an incredible achievement.

        Either way; everyone loves a good stat!

        1. Absolutely. Stats are great,

          But you can’t use them in isolation. Take your point about the Ireland Wales game. Tackles alone show that Wales had the ball a lot. Take into account missed tackles as well and you can tell whether the defensive effort was successful or not

          Likewise metres gained. The interesting comparison would be between both wingers and the fullback. If Mike Brown gains 100 yds that means nothing but if Ashton or Goode gain only 10 each, that would indicate that Brown is more effective – likewise with the defenders beaten / clean breaks stats

          Of course, there are some stats that will tell a story on their own. Missed kicks at goal, turnovers conceded, penalties given away

          1. Stats are irrelevant but they are still something that interest me. You cannot judge a team by the fact that they made so many tackles and so many metres.
            I can’t believe anyone is actually having an argument about this, stats are just interesting to look at!

  5. The “best runners” stats tell me that the French were the biggest failure again at the weekend, as they had 3 in the top 5………………………but still lost!

Comments are closed.