58 Responses to Super 14 form – Deon Stegmann vs Francois Louw, another perspective

• 

  1

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 12 June 2010 at 6:27 pm

  Dankie GBS dat jy ELVs reggemaak het. Kan jy dalk asb die spasies tussen die woorde in die Tabelle regmaak asb. Dit lyk asof hulle alles aan een loop nadat jy dit oorgeplaas het. Net sodat mense beter sin kan maak van die inligting asb, die spasies soos dit is in die dokument wat ek aan jou getsuur het. Dankie.
• 

  2

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 12 June 2010 at 6:37 pm

  Ek sien my artikel is onder “General, Super14” en McLook se poging was onder “Fun”, maar nou’s dit verander. hehehe, moes dit so gelos het man.
• 

  3

  grootblousmile on 12 June 2010 at 6:57 pm

  1@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
  Dink die spasiering is nou reg, die flippen HTML is partykeer ‘n bliksem, veral met tabelle.
• 

  4

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 12 June 2010 at 7:06 pm

  @ grootblousmile:

  O okei, dankie.

  Maar bv op tabel 6, in die 3de en 4de kolomme staan “R” aleen, en ek wou “fussy” wees en die woorde meestal een per lyn he en in die middel vir netheid, nes in die woord dokument. Dit sou soveel makliker gewees het as ek “author status” gehad het 😉

  Nee, weereens dankie. Nou wag ek ook net vir die poll… 🙂
• 

  5

  grootblousmile on 12 June 2010 at 7:23 pm

  4@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
  Flok, as jy Author Status gehad het moes ek nie al hierdie foute regmaak nie want dan kon jy daar en dan op die Visual Editor die ding bou en tabelle insit….

  Poll?? – Jy bedoel seker die Poll om te vra wie van DBK Wandelaar of McLook is die meeste reg… of is dit dalk wie van julle 2 gee my die meeste werk?
• 

  6

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 12 June 2010 at 7:35 pm

  5@ grootblousmile:

  🙂 hehe, sorry man. Dalk is die tydsberekening `n bietjie uit? Moes dalk die ding op gesit het in die middel van die week wanneer almal verveeld is en tyd het om kommentaar te lewer.

  Elkgeval, ek sal die link na JJ Harmse van die Beeld toe stuur, sodat hy daardie arme Louis de Villiers kan reghelp. 😉
• 

  7

  fender on 12 June 2010 at 8:50 pm

  Gbs, broer your post regarding the poll is an absolute classic – I read it about 10 minutes ago and I’ve only caught my breath enough to post now, hehe!!

  DBKW, I must congratulate you on an epic piece of camouflage and subterfuge – all in perpfect Queen’s English. Well done!!
• 

  8

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 12 June 2010 at 9:51 pm

  7@ fender:

  Ok dankie.
  Queens English?

  camoflage?

  🙂
  No. As the the heading says “another perspecive”. I appreciate McLook’s articles, he did start me on this.I thought it was very interesting with his comparison for Spies and Vermeulen. Then I went to check up on the stats, and found that you have to refine the raw stats to make sense out of them, and that if anything else I think with all due respect to McLook, he was more busy with advocating for the WP players, which is normal. I think I have layed it out clearly in the article enough for anyone to make his own opinion, but unfortunatley what should come with it is the stats excel file, which I will forward to any person who ask for it. Just e-mail me with the e-mail adres in the article.

  But ja, I think some columns need some more explanation if you are not willing to go too deep with it, just to make it clearer, but it is already very clear, and I let the stats speak for themselves and I found that both are very good players, it is just simply that one of them has not gotten recognition and I believe he has a very strong case.
  Of hoe se jy?
• 

  9

  McLook on 13 June 2010 at 3:03 am

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar wrote:

  he was more busy with advocating for the WP players

  That remark is unfair (I want so say absoulue bullshit but I’ll wont) to say the least. I have no agenda; never had one when it came to these stats (on another website the province fans accused me for being pro bulls). In fact I don’t care who won the stats contest. It was just interesting info for me. You one the other hand clearly have an agenda.
  You didn’t find or report anything different from my analysis. There are however a few main differences in the two articles. I reported the data objectively while you set out to to argue a case for Stegman and you used seletive sets of data to do just that (built an case for Stegman). For instance 5 of your 6 tables were on the areas that Stegman clearly won (in my analysis). So all you did was used the info in which Stegman are strong (because of how he is used by the bulls) you then broke that info up into 5 tables (too over empasize) and adjust for time to make it look even more impressive. Why so much emphasis on essentailly the same info/data and why then adjust for time on the field if Stegman already won the category? Just to make him look even better?
  In table 1 you also went and pick Stegmans best game to argue a point. All players have good and bad games and selecting one situation does not prove anything.
  Blame shifting is alo not on like blaming the referee for Stegman penalty count. The reality is players will play diffent referee’s and should adjust to them.
  Lastly but most importantly any comparisons adjusted for time (spend on the field) will always favour the player having spend the least amount of time on the field. For instance if I create a circuit with rugby specific tasks (like running from one station to the next doing wresling for the ball or picking up the ball needing to catch the ball making passes and so forth) and count the number of times the player does the tasks and rate his accuracy and then adjust for time the player will always do better the shorter the duration of the test/circuit. The longer the circuit runs the slower the player will get and the more mistakes will be made.
  However after having said all that I did enjoy reading your article. I think you’ll make a good laywer and might even convice some jury members but for me you just confirmed what I found and argued all along.
• 

  10

  KingPaul on 13 June 2010 at 9:47 am

  Mmm. Ek hoop julle het gister se game gekyk en dat die opsessie met statistiek nou end sal kry! Die Louw, Burger en Spies kombinasie gaan nog baie games vir SA speel. En menigte toeskouer by gister se game was dit eens dat Louw MOM moes gewees het.
  Stegmann is te lig in die broek om ‘n boktrui by een van hulle aftevat.
• 

  11

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:02 am

  @ McLook: @9

  First I want to apologize for having made the remark about “advocating” in your ansence seeing as you weren’t here to defend yourself, I meant it purely in terms of your articles stance. Not in terms of an “agenda” so much…and the rest was poking fun at you, OK?

  Even if your aim was to be objective over the players you compared in your article, you conclude in your “Stegmann vs Burger” piece *link* that:

  “…notwithstanding, the data speaks for itself and there may be no doubt that Schalk is the better player.”

  …that AFTER you mentioned their difference in role.

  Now, I want to state clearly, the reason why I state TWICE in the article- in the beginning and at the end, that ANYONE is welcome to get the fulls raw stats that I compiled(e-mail me at flankstats@hotmail.com) (straight from Ruggastats) AS WELL as the calculations, is because of the following:

  -This information is critical, but the article is long enough already, so I would like it to be free for everyone to see.

  -I USED EVERY SINGLE STAT AND CATEGORY PROVIDED BY RUGGASTATS (except kicking-for obvious reasons), EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. I didn’t leave anything out, or go about being selective. The “playmaker” passes per pass or handle count was not used as I stated in the article, (And I didn’t even want to use them, as I said, in my comparison of Burger and Louw, although Louw scored three times higher. I explained this also in terms of how the two flankers are used in tandem in their team)

  I explained my approach in adapting the stats for the minutes very carefully (if you read carefully).We both agree that this had to be done in order to compare the stats in first place. If there is a problem with my highlighting of the “highest tackle count in a match”, then one could simply not highlight them as is the case in column 2 of Table 3.

  But when criticizing “my” data, let me begin my defence in a short critical review of yourS;

  In your Burger vs Stegmann piece:

  You often use raw average, not adapting for Burgers obvious more minutes played and did not explain this, and YOU TOO proceed to highlight Burgers stats as if to say that he “scores better” in these categories. Where did you get your turnover stat? In raw data AND RATE, Stegmann scores much higher than Burger (and I state in the article that it is a small number). Why did you put an equal number down? Stegmann scores more than 3 times higher.

  You never eplain some of your “calculations” and you never offer to release your database. Yet you criticize me on also making the calculations?!

  NONE of your stats are adapted for minutes played and this the uses to argue that Sschalk is “by far better” (in your words).

  Furthermore one finds FUALTY INFORMATION in your article:

  TABLE 1:

  column 2-Burger’s assist figure over an average is 3.5 and not 3.86.
  column 3-This stat is unexplained and the informatio doesn’t exist.
  column 5- Burger misses more tackles, YET you highlight it as a positive?! I know that you might have missed it, but it mistakenly gives the impression that Burger is “far better” to the casual reader. And then you go on to explain in your first paragraph that Burger makes 3.1 times MORE tackles per match?! Where did you get this info? You info is purely imaginary. Explain to us how Burger has made 3.1 times the tackles, even by averages aswell as ignoring minutes. Of course this is easy to see this mistake, but nevertheless the impression is made for your bias.

  TABLE 2:

  column2- Just like my stat that you criticized on mot tackle in a macth with time included, here you use the pass count and highlight it in order to say Burger was better? How does passing more when you have the ball make you a better player? that’s why I didn’t use a bogus stat like : “Passes per handle count”…because it doesn’t make sense and has no bearing on the argument!
  Column5+6- The data here used in your average are both wrong, you make Burger higher in each case.

  TABLE 3:

  You make no attempt to explain anything about penalties and your categories are lumped together.
• 

  12

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:02 am

  @ McLook: @9

  Secondly,

  In your follow-up article on Louw vs Stegmann:

  TABLE 1:

  Column 4 (missed tackles)- You stat is horribly wrong and this is wrong used to make Louw appear better(we are obviously using these stats to make a point, and hence the articles we write): you state

  Louw=1.13, Stgemann 1.17. How did you work this out?! It is Stegmann 0.7, Louw 1.13. So the casual reader gets the impression that Louw is a better tackleer. In my article it is clear that Stegmann even has

  a better “tackling efficiency”, WHICH YOU FAIL TO EVEN MENTION! And you criticize ME for being biased and selective on stats. I let the stats speak for themself.

  TABLE 2:

  Column 2, 4: Once again using “passes” to make an argument for a better player. Once again using “handle count” in your argument for who is a better player. I clearly state this in my article and hence I

  don’t highlight them in the column I provided (Table 3. Column2 of my article)

  Column 7: You never release the full stat and And never explain how you came to this number. Where did you get it? How did you calculate it?

  TABLE 3:

  Column 2- This stat is incorrect. Stegmann has less penalties in total, it is only on minutes played that Louw scores lower. Once again it is YOU who have not only provided faulty stats, but also no

  calculation, and still use the “highlight method” to give the mistaken impression that Louw is “better”.

  TABLE 4:

  column 2: This is incorrect. It is not per minute, or per match, yet you state you tried to correct per minute, yet the reader could never begin to guess how you came up with this stat.

  column 3: ONCE AGAIN incorrect. Stegmann missed fewer takles, whether you look at it “per match”, “per minute” or any other way. How did you calculate this incorrect stat? Why then do give the mistaken

  impression that Louw is better when infact he fared more poorly in this stat? (Remember we ARE using these stats to make a point, are we not?)

  column 4: Once again unexplained, and NOT adapted. I clearly show and explain intext concerninf carrying and that Louw has made 5.9meters for every 4meter that Stegmann made.

  You go on to explain in paragraph 5 that “Louw was indeed better with ball in hand and missed less tackle”-when ,as mentioned, LOUW missed more takles not Stegmann. You claim that yyou’ve corrected for

  minute played, but never relvealed your formulas (as I have done in the articel , and offered to make available by e-mail of the spreadsheets.). I have found that your stats are invalid, nd therefore serve a

  minimal purpose. (Actually none in the case of your faulty stats, and as mentioned in post commentary, Verusco was to be used and the stats may differ wildy, YET some of your stats have a too large a HUMAN

  error. Your error is then used in your “case against” Stegmann. This is unfair to the player, unfair to the reader, AND goes against the whole ppoint of the exercize in the first place.)

  column 9: Here is an example where you have actually made Louw look “bad”. in an averaged stat, how does poor old Louw score 0.14 to Stegmanns 21.5? It isn’t even entirely correct to adjust the mistaken

  order of magnitude.

  You have criticized ME, in saying that I have an agenda, yet YOU conclude your 2nd article with:

  “My data as well as my own eye have proved that Francois Louw is aa seriously good player” (Obvious in your reference to stats in an article about stats comparison of two players, it goes without saying that

  this mention is at the expense of Stegmann. Then you go on to say that Stegmann impressed you in the Crusaders game and mention basically only in reference to his ability to disrupt opposition ball, which is

  bordreing on the illegal. My article shows that, although Stegmann is used in a support role (as I mention), he is a contender in every other function where Louw on the other hand is a ball carrier and hence

  the number on his back.

  To conclude:

  I used every single stat (With the exception mentioned above here in my first post.) WHAT DID I LEAVE OUT?! In fact I offer the reader far more information by including other relevant indices, that you have

  criticized me of preferentially displaying for the sake of Stegmann.

  Regarding intensity of play:

  It is of course naturally generally so that intensity is higher per shorter time unit and time spent. It is also often an ASSUMPTION we have to make, and the times in certain matches are very close. This

  doesn’t tell us about the players attitude when he tires, but we do assume so out of common sense. It is not to say that Stegmann couldn’t play a full match or even that he was as exhaused when he came off

  the field for a shorter, intense match. This is partly assumption. If Stegmann was to play full matches, of course when would assume that his stats would adapt accordingly and one would see his “tackle count

  per minute” taper off. Alot of defense is how you get yourself to the relevant points on the field in order to defend and is obviously affected by fatigue. But you assume that Stegmann couldn’t get aroung at

  the end of 65 minute spell. Further in the role he being used, he tire more in anyway- that is my assumption- yet he still appears to “beat” Louw in most categories, regardless if it were possible to adjust

  the figure for an exponential taper in form due to fatigue. The statistical difference in many of the categories are so varied and so concise, that in many instances this point of your would be relevant, but

  still the outcome the same; and our point of comparing the two and highlighting each category still in effect as my article states.

  You have used two artciles, one for Stegmann vs Burger, and Stegmann vs Louw. YOUR conclusions BOTH times, albeit not put contentiously, is that on both count Stegmann is “inferior”. I have found your

  article to be of little use at all, your stats incorrect, and your explanations of little help. In my article (With the intensity/fatigue issue debateable-but ONLY for some stats AS OTHERS ARE CLEARLY SELF-

  REFERENCING and a player that makes more errors so significantly just due to 10-15 minutes extra play is in anyway not good enough), it is clear that Stegmann is better in all main categories, except ball

  carrying (for which I refer to roles of players in the artilce, and Louw is a 7 Stegmann a 6). This is a very different picture to the one that you paint, and I believe that Stegmann doesn’t get the credit

  that he deserves and is further doen in by your approach on this site for all to see.

  The selection process has to be “organic” as stated more or less in both, but the selectors are definitely not free of politics, as we are so used to in South Africa,and the selectors are human and fans just

  like you or me. Slightly more object would be a consideration of the stats, and hence I wrote the article and my opinion is that, all things considered, Stegmann is a better player and I would rather have

  chose him. Purely on his merit form, on also due to the fact that most of the Bok forwards are Bulls, and that Stegmann would eventually be playing with his provincial combinations, escpecially the lossetrio

  of Spies and Potgieter.
  In these regards, I conclude that the casual reader can find much more value in my article for the point of the matter than both of yours combined.
• 

  13

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:06 am

  10@ KingPaul:

  Louw het n briljante wedstryd gehad, nis daaraan te twyfel nie. Maar om te se Stegmann is te lig in die broek om die “Boktrui af te vat”, is soos om te se Brussow is nie goed genoeg vir die Bokke nie. Stegmann en Brussow is baie dieselfde soort speler, Stegmann kon Brussow nou al verby gevat het met sy form op 6. Speeltyd en ervaring maak saak, maar in die talent afdeling glo ek ook dat Stegmann net so goed indien nie beter as Brussow is nie.
• 

  14

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:09 am

  11@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:

  *link* The links for McLooks articles:

  The link to the Burger versus Stegamnn article is: rugby-talk.com/?p=13426
  The link to the Louw vs Stegmann article is: rugby-talk.com/?p=13448
• 

  15

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:42 am

  @ McLook:
  9

  ” I reported the data objectively while you set out to to argue a case for Stegman and you used seletive sets of data to do just that (built an case for Stegman).”

  I’ve already establish in the above posts that my data wan’t selective, and that in fact I used more categories than you. It isn’t my fualt that the data show that Stegmann “scores” better in the method that we both have used. Just becaues I made fun about being a biased Bulls supporter you have adopted this mentality towards me, unnecessarily and the accusations isn’t beared out by the facts.

  ” So all you did was used the info in which Stegman are strong (because of how he is used by the bulls) you then broke that info up into 5 tables (too over empasize)”

  As already mentioned I used more of everything than you did, And I didn’t “break” the stats up into 5 tables or categories–This is how they are on the site, and I put the relevant categories together. Because that makes sense, unlike yourself who has lumped together different types of categories. And “OVER EMPHASIZE”? I state every category once, and there is no need to beat the reader over the head with it. I tried to make the article short as possible. Can you give me an example of where I repeated and over emphasized anything that wsan’t relevant???

  “Blame shifting is alo not on like blaming the referee for Stegman penalty count”

  I made it very clear, tha in the relevant areas, Louw was penalized MORE THAN Stegmann. Louw even had a higher total penalty count, I don’t know what you are referring to. This is nonsense, Louw scores better in “penalties per minute”, but the adjustment has to be made since I’ve abviously demonstrated that eventhough Stegmann played less minutes, he put himself in positions to conced penalties far more, (Intesity-wise and in total), BECAUSE these are the areas in which penalties are given away! Why does it not make sens then to point this out?! Is it because it makes Louw look worse? Both are excellent, But Louw’s les per minute, is because he didn’t put himself in position to concede penalties as much as Stegmann did. Most penalties are awarded at the breakdown, and hence the whole controvery this year with the interpretations and refs, and these two players are eatly those that concede in that department. So you see it makes perfect sense, and in fact I didn’t even “spin” anything- I just put the rates down…AND then I explained it so that if you felt it was irrelevant, then move on, and my artilce has less validity. But it is highly relevant. What is you point on this then?

  You seem to just try to shoot me down as a “biased Stegmann supporter”, and claim your stats do the talkng-so do mine and mine aren’t incorrect and have explanations in every sense as well as a database that I am willing to release.
• 

  16

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:50 am

  9@ McLook:

  “However after having said all that I did enjoy reading your article. I think you’ll make a good laywer and might even convice some jury members but for me you just confirmed what I found and argued all along.”

  I have stated so many times that my database as well as all my calculations etc are available, so why would I want to get away with being selective of the stats, give me your e-mail, or just e-mail me, or contact GBS and get it and see for yourself. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do the effort, and it seems trivial and meaningless. But you saw the sense to write 3 articles on stats in the first place, for which I am greatful as it got me interested too. In the same way one could argue that rugby itself is meaningless etc.

  I did this articel (first I wanted to do my own on Pierre Spies vs Vermeulen,then I ealised that there is a far more inaccurate view of the flanks and far more to be said), I did this because I believe that Stegmann isn’t getting his due credit like another blogger noted on heere recently. And I point this out because I wan the best for the Boks and critical views are beneficial and healthy for our rugby like competion, and as fans/supporters and bloggers we feel that we would like to have a say and right to criticize selections and it makes us “involved” and we are all rugby fans. It is our passion.
• 

  17

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 10:56 am

  9@ McLook:

  “You didn’t find or report anything different from my analysis”

  Our finds, our conclusions, our reports and our analyses are completely different. Not our goal in putting forward the articles though. This is a nonsense statement, and you should perhaps rethink your stance.
• 

  18

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 11:10 am

  @ McLook:

  “Why so much emphasis on essentailly the same info/data and why then adjust for time on the field if Stegman already won the category? Just to make him look even better?”

  No, wrong again,for a good example of putting forward enough info, look at TABLE 6, column 5+6, the last two columns:

  In column 5 Louw scores better in that on bulk, total figures, he made a 16.5% contribution to the same category of the teams total (You have to compare things of the same unit).
  Now, look at column 6. Stegmann suddenly scores better than Louw, this is because while Stegmann only made a bulk total contribution of 13% defense to the team, when looking at his contributional average per match and “strike rate” (because of the adjustment allowed for minutes), one can see that Stegmann has a higher workrate than expected. This can be verified now by the stat and the “eye” on matchday, do you see now?

  How is this not relevant to the discussion? This is another example where I have provided more information for the reader, regardless of which player it may benefit, and it clearly serves its purpose. Why then have you criticized my provision of information, because it makes Stegmann “seem a better player”? Well maybe he IS in fact a better player with regards to workrate. Did you ever think about that? The more stats provided and calculations made (and all openly and verifyable and explained of course, as I strive to do…the more would/should become apparent which player is “better”, isn’t that so? Thus the stats and the players can do the talking for themselves, and your criticism of me in this regard haas been abolutely unfair.

  I hope you reconsider your stance, and see the validity of the argument.
• 

  19

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 11:18 am

  9@ McLook:

  “There are however a few main differences in the two articles. I reported the data objectively while you set out to to argue a case for Stegman…”

  Is that your objective opinion? 😆
• 

  20

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 11:28 am

  9@ McLook:

  “and you used seletive sets of data…”

  Pardon me, but I still can’t get over how you can justify that statement. I used everything that you used in tables and that was available from Ruggastats, and MORE. I calculated obvious and relevant stats that have to do with the relevant catgories. I didn’t add anything that should rather not be there, unless for descriptive purposes, and the rest are explained in-text.

  It wouldn’t make sense, for example, to have an index or something sinilar for; “Handle Count per Minute” or “Passes per Handle Count”. So I didn’t do it. Which of my “categories” are irrelevant? Which don’t serve their purpose?

  Actually, with regards to my posts 11 and 12 (my defence andmy critique of your aricles), I made it clear that it is in fact YOU who provided redundant and irrelevant columns, yet you criticize me for this very same thing, but you do it yourself.
• 

  21

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 11:32 am

  Ok, that is part of my defense and for clarity’s sake. Which is important for our purpose of posting articles in the first place, and making Rugy-Talk.com stronger. Not to mention any insights perhaps that anyone could gain and views that are shared.

  I hope that you will respond soon.
• 

  22

  grootblousmile on 13 June 2010 at 11:54 am

  Here’s my stance on the matter:

  Both Deon Stegmann and Francois Louw are excellent players, but their roles and Application is so radically different that it basically comes down to a travesty to compare the 2 from a perspective of who is best.

  The critical role Stegmann played in key matched for the Bulls underline just how important he has been in their cause. We all know he plays a breakdown role, arriving there first, either pilfering ball or more importantly slowing opposition ball down.

  Similarly the role Francois Louw played in the Stormers setup was equally impressive in a team where 2 traditional blindsiders are used, carrying the ball up, gaining running metres and pilfering ball in ground ball situations.

  There is no country in the world with such riches at looseforward as South Africa, not even the much vaunted New Zealand…. not by a country mile!

  Depending how you want the Bokke to play, the role that the coach carves out for flankers, will depend who you select…. and there seems to be a reluctance to use the Bulls pattern of Classic Loosie Combo (where Stegmann was key) even to some extent there was a reluctance to choose Heinrich Brussow a year ago…. well he certainly proved them wrong and made a strong point for the Classic Combo.

  With this I’m not by any means saying Peter de Villiers is wrong in choosing Francois Louw, we saw him having a blinder yesterday, and a near Man of the Match performance, against France, SA’s 2nd biggest ever rivals.

  What I’m pleading for is an understanding of the differing roles and a joint celebration on the merits of both players. The fact that we debate their value is, to me, an indication just how highly we rate both… in fact an indication how highly we rate all our South African loosies.

  Long live the loosie battle!!
• 

  23

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 12:27 pm

  22@ grootblousmile:

  I think there is indeed a comparison to be made between the two flanks, and the player with the closest role to Stegmann’s in Stormers camp is Louw.So I do not think that their application is so radically different that it makes articles such as this irrelevant.Regarding the differences in roles: this has been refered to enough in all the articles.

  I think if one were to take McLooks three articles and mine, and lay them before objective readers from different backgrounds and persuasions, they would be able to find more sense in mine. When reading his articles (especially on the flanks) I found it hard to navigate the info since it was sparsely annotated, and the certain relevant categories not explained at all.

  It was only when I sought clarity and went and did my own research, that I realized where his errors were in data gathering, data processing, data presentation and his overall opinion that he then proceded to draw…from that exact same data! This then prompted me do my own analysis and ask permission to place it in an article, which together along with the separate (for obvious reasons) database of mine -that is available to anyone- is not only a much better representation of the stats, but also easier to read/make sense of, and where I then drew MY conlcusion and opinions from.

  Yes, I am a Bulls supporter. Yes, Stegmann is a Bulls player. So what? I didn’t go and make a case for every Bulls player (some don’t need it, and some…well…aren’t good enough). But Stegmann is another story altogether and has a very good case, and is very underrated.That is why I felt slightly compelled to write the article, and it is also because it was fun- sort of like a hobby. I believe the article is efficient enough in letting the data speak for itself. Is there any stat/category/index that you felt should be included? (gerig aan McLook.If you think so, what are they?) You can see that I included everything that was available to me and more, and provided more food for thought than his articles on the flanks, which is my opinion anyway.

  I know it is very difficult to compare the two via stats to find wich is “better”. That’s why I started my article with an explanation of this.There is validity overall in such an article, and which is why to some extent it has been done numerous times by others. I think that there is information enough to go on to deduce who has, for exmaple:

  a higher workrate, better tackling efficiency etc..(not so much in this case with 92.5% vs 90.5% of Stegmann and Louw, but Burger for example has in every year scored round about 5+ % less in his effiency than Stegmann when he came to the Super 14, and before then), thus if I was to wonder which of the players compared are better at, say, tackling, I could say;” STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, Stegmann is better”.

  You see? (Kind of like saying: “If I was to let a player kick a penalty to save my life who would it be? Morne Steyn or Peter Grant?” I’d look at the stats and perhaps say Morne Steyn, which leads some immediately to think that Steyn is the better flyhalf, AND it is definetly considerations such as THESE that would lead (even atleast in part) to certain selection choices, and that GBS, means the difference between Bok, and no Bok. Your name in the annals of history forever, or your name fogotten…
• 

  24

  Winston on 13 June 2010 at 12:39 pm

  The problem with this article is that it is too analytical,yes one guy might have better stats in a certain area than the other but I know stats dont lie but they can be misleading.. To use a cricketing analogy its like saying a test match hundred against Bangladesh is the same as a test match hundred against Australia.. Like Gbs said they play two competely different roles so I find it very difficult to compare to two. I feel Stegman is a true fetcher in the Heinrich role where Francois is a combination between a true fetcher and an opensider.
• 

  25

  McLook on 13 June 2010 at 12:40 pm

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar wrote:

  I hope that you will respond soon

  Listen maate. I’ve read you article and you have not repoptred anything different in the sense that Stegman is better at the breakdowns and Louw is better with the ball in hand. I’ve stated that Stegan probaly play under instruction and that I do believe that influence his game meaning that he could probably be a better carrier of the ball if he need to be.
  I don’t have the time or inclinatioon to read your elaborated response(s) here as it is clear to me that you seems to be obsessed about Stegman trying to prove something. This is one of that never ending prove myself correct situations and I am just not interested in this sort of on going ego trips.
  I’ve got other work to do and frankly just had enough of this whole issue.
  Nothing you wrote changed my mind to the slightest; the data is clear there is nothing more to debate here. Get over it.
• 

  26

  Winston on 13 June 2010 at 12:41 pm

  I meant blind side and true fetcher 🙂
• 

  27

  grootblousmile on 13 June 2010 at 12:44 pm

  23@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
  Well, debate is alive and well… long may that continue, that is the essense of any rugby blog… and definately of Rugby-Talk.

  You see, exploring stats is just that… an exploration of data… the measure is often subjective and because of that somewhat tainted, seeing as stats can ALWAYS be MANIPULATED.

  I principally believe in what my eyes see for themselves and can proudly say I saw every minute of the play of both Stegmann and Francois Louw this Super 14.. and have formed my own opinions based on personal observation.

  I have often advocted the Classic Looseforward Combination as the best and have a special interest in Looseforward play seeing as I played Openside Flank till the age of 26 myself. One tends to look very closely at the position one played yourself, therefore I will stand back and listen what Tighthead, for instance, says about the role of props and the front row… that is HIS speciality, not mine.

  This said, there is merit in both Stegmann or Brussow playing for the Springboks or Francois Louw and / or Schalk Burger playing for the Springboks.

  Let me ask this, do you agree that South Africa can probably field 9 – 12 Quality Loosies in a Test scenario, with none of them letting the side down? That is the riches I’m talking about!
• 

  28

  Winston on 13 June 2010 at 12:48 pm

  I’m a big fan of Willem Alberts,he is a monster of a man at 8 and can give cover at 4 and 7,one of the Sharks few decent buys this year.
• 

  29

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 1:11 pm

  27@ grootblousmile:

  Yes stats can always be manipulated, but they can also be objectively analysed for the relevant subjects and put forward without bias. That is what I aimed to do in my article. The stats do serve a purpose, more than what I mentioned @23. And it is good tha tMcLook sought to try and make an article of it a couple of times. It is good food for thought, I think.

  @ Winston:

  I am also a Alberts fan, moving to the sharks was a good move, at least he missed the nightmare Lions season.
• 

  30

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar on 13 June 2010 at 1:21 pm

  25@ McLook:
  McLook wrote:

  Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar wrote:
  I hope that you will respond soonListen maate. I’ve read you article and you have not repoptred anything different in the sense that Stegman is better at the breakdowns and Louw is better with the ball in hand. I’ve stated that Stegan probaly play under instruction and that I do believe that influence his game meaning that he could probably be a better carrier of the ball if he need to be.
  I don’t have the time or inclinatioon to read your elaborated response(s) here as it is clear to me that you seems to be obsessed about Stegman trying to prove something. This is one of that never ending prove myself correct situations and I am just not interested in this sort of on going ego trips.
  I’ve got other work to do and frankly just had enough of this whole issue.
  Nothing you wrote changed my mind to the slightest; the data is clear there is nothing more to debate here. Get over it.

  You say that you haven’t read my “long posts” in response to your criticism of me, yet you may criticize me? What’s the point if I can’t respond?
  Furthermore you claim that I don’t report more than you. Obviously I cannot repeat the whole article in the commentary block here, but it is also clear- from your own words- that you haven’t even read all my material/remarks.

  So how can you make such statements. I have no obsession with Stegmann, I am simply carrying on in the spirit of the articles posted. Otherwise what purpose do they serve? What is then the point even of having a rugby-blog like this one as myself and GBS point out in posts 23 and 27 respectively.

  This is no way to respond to my article on this blog, is not in the “spirit of things” and the unbiased or not so unbiased reader can then safely assume that I have “won” any kind of debate that has arisen and the presentation of the statistical data that I have put forward is in fact superior.

  It is of course unnecessary and out of place to have worked in a rebuttal of your work into my article…HENCE the commentary bloacks.

  So don’t bother responding until you’ve read it. I point out clear for all to see, the fallacies in your “arguments”.

  Irrational responses such as those @25 are non-productive.