|
|
Post by cookmysock on Jun 6, 2019 6:29:18 GMT
Hey guys,
I want to throw a suggestion out there to make rating a bit more realistic in relation to actual talent, rather than the heavily stat based way we look at things now.
I have a gripe with every damn hooker in the game for example being rated as mega defenders, when isnt actual fact, they simply aren’t. There are far better defenders than some hookers for example with 6 defence ratings, simply because they play in the centres for example.
Hookers are getting huge numbers simply because they play long minutes in the middle of the field, therefore, getting 9 defences based on total tackles. I want to call BS on this.
I think we should be rating players based on their position stats, & the minutes they play. A prop making 25 tackles per match is getting a 7 defence, whilst a hooker making 40 is getting a 9 for his 40minutes work. In almost every case, the prop will be a better defender as far as defensive talent. He will be hitting harder, & often doing more per minute on the feld workload wise.
This is simply an example, I could use others.
There are great defensive fullbacks (agan a random example) & there are shit ones, but the difference generally will be 5 defence to 7 defence, as the good defender isn’t, stat wise at least, that far superior due to only being asked to make maybe 5 tackles per game. How can he shine? WE should be comparing him to other fullbacks
Why cant we have 9/9 fullbacks for example, if the guy is the best defensive fullback in the game.
Why shouldn’t an average hooker be rated 7/7, instead of 7/9, simply because he is plonked in the middle of the field where he can make a bunch of flops.
Lets start comparing hookers to hookers, centres to centres etc, & take into consideration more than we do now the minutes guys are playing to get their stats.
Guess why managers are putting so many back rowers in the centres in ASRL. Its due to our stat based obsession & not seeing the real picture.
& on the poms, I say we knock a stat point off when we are rating, & then each rater can give it back if he truly believes that pommy player would be worthy of the higher stat in the NRL, it would have some personal opinion attached, but so what? Its more realistic.
I'm not going out of my way to pick on hookers here, its just the exapmple I am using. I could easily give examples with wingers, centres, back rowers or locks, its just the way I am trying to make the point.
Our current rating system is bog average & rewarding things other than talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mackdadday on Jun 6, 2019 8:02:14 GMT
I agree and have mentioned before that i think backs are often rated too low but was told they’d be liabilities and can’t defend like top line forwards. I’d love to see top line backs with high defense stats if they are that solid.
In terms of hookers maybe tackle efficiency needs to be considered but I think if we go away from stat based ratings it’s going to cause difficulties across the board. Our current system isn’t perfect but at least we have established norms for players who don’t stand out and when players do stand out such as Lachlan fitzgibbon did last season they got more than their stats show.
Would post more if I were home but not near my laptop.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragon4 on Jun 7, 2019 2:13:11 GMT
I like your suggestion Bill.....we do need to look at talent, but I believe we need to look at the tackle efficiency more so, than just the amount of tackles made......but comparing ratings by position has its merits too.
I strongly want to push the change of ESL ratings and was also thinking we need to minus a point from each attack and defence ratings.
I'd like to know what coaches consider to be temperament and its rating.
We need to have a rating system which incorporating the factors above......Competition played in, position played and talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by padds on Jun 7, 2019 10:53:25 GMT
Dont think you can just dock 1 point of defence and attack in ESL. We need a diffrent approach. I suggest we phase out English players in ASRL with the intention of getting rid of them all
|
|
|
|
Post by bossman on Jun 7, 2019 22:17:22 GMT
While our rating systems are not perfect (and I don't think we'll ever get to perfection as opinions are purely different), I think it has never been better and its pretty damn good. I don't think our raters have ever been more on the same page as where we are at the moment.
I do agree with Bill's sentiment that we do need to rate more on what we see in players rather than rely purely on stats. Stats are a pretty good barometer on how a player is going but it is not everything.....particularly as Bill says in particular positions. I'll use my old player Luke Lewis as an example. I admit that if you were to use stats as the only barometer on how he was going, he would have been a 7/7 over his last two NRL years. I hid my fear that he'd lose his 8/8 in re-rates every time. Fortunately, we rated what we saw from him and he was definitely an 8/8 standard player right until the end.
I admit that I've fallen into the stat trap a bit over the last couple of ASRL seasons rather than going with what I see and my gut. I'll be changing that this off-season. I'll still look at stats but consider the whole picture rather than just stats. Some people will feel bitter if their player who has great stats don't get the stat raise....but what should balance things out is what the majority of raters decide.....and we should all respect the final call of what we as a group decide what a player should be. In saying that, a player with great stats is obviously doing something right in a particular area and should be rewarded.
Fullbacks / Wingers: I think we need to be a bit cautious as to how to rate these guys. Even the most average wingers can clock up 100m a game, does not make them necessarily great players. Wingers/fullbacks get some walk up metres due to the nature of their position in bringing the ball back. Consider other factors rather than just their metre count. In saying that, most reg nrl wingers would deserve an 8. Don't be afraid to give a winger a 7 if they don't quite cut the mustard despite clocking up 100m. Defence, you'd obviously mark them on their stability at the back, positioning as well as how well they tackle.
Centres: Attack, we have them pretty right. Defence, some could be higher as we do have some centres with solid tackling technique. Consider that in your ratings. Some can be turnstyles though.
Halves...We have it pretty right. Very, very few halves would get a 7 in defence. DCE and Ben Hunt defend very well for their positions.
Hookers: Bill is spot on with the hookers thing. We do need to definitely keep in mind how many they miss as well as how many they make before determining a final defence rating. Korisau and Mahoney are two that come to mind when it comes to missing tackles. Still reward their high tackle counts but keep in mind how many they miss as well.
Props: Pretty on the money. Consider which props break the line as opposed to which ones bend the line when giving 9's to props. Consider crazy workrate and impact as well.
Backrow: Pretty perfect.
Lock: Spot on.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossman on Jun 7, 2019 22:32:18 GMT
As for the ESL, I have to respectfully disagree with Padds here. I love watching the ESL and think it is essential to keep ESL players as part of our game. The ASRL DOES need to make a key decision on how to rate them though. To me, how we rate them depends on the aims of the ASRL.
If we are aiming for ultimate realism, we simply need to take an attack/defence rating stat off a player with the same type of performance as one who plays in the NRL. The ESL is a definite downgrade in terms of intensity. 40 tackles in the ESL is NOT the same as 40 tackles in the NRL. 180m a game is not the same in the ESL as in the NRL. Without exceptions to the rule, an attack or defence rating point would have to go down for every player....simple as that.
If we are aiming for increased competitiveness in the ASRL as a whole, than we need to continue rating the ESL players as we do now and treat the ESL as an equivalent competition to the NRL.
I would prefer that we continue to rate ESL players in the way we do but can definitely live with things is we revert to realism and take a stat point off each ESL player.
On another note, I DO think we should delete players who have gone to rugby union from our database. They have left our game, therefore can be difficult to rate fairly.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossman on Jun 7, 2019 23:03:13 GMT
To me, the biggest example on why to not rely on stats was the rating of Matthew Eisenhuth. He had just broken into first grade and had 8 type stats in attack and defence (very borderline on both). Me being a Wests Tigers fan, I saw nothing remarkable in him in attack while in defence, he made his tackles but with no particular impact. Watching him, he was purely a 7/7 but we went stats and gave him an 8/8. He could have passed for a 7/8 but should never have been made an 8/8. A prime example on why we need to consider so much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by cookmysock on Jun 8, 2019 21:49:09 GMT
I really dont want to lose the English players, I think we just need to be sensible with their ratings.
I intend to rate them by their stats, then ask myself, are they really that good.
Many players will hold the ratings I get from their stats, many wont. Jackson Hastings is an example that springs to my mind, his rating will not match his stats....he isn't that good.
Like I said earlier, personal opinion will come into this but so what, thats what its all about.
I'm glad this discussion is getting some attention, it needs it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossman on Jun 8, 2019 22:32:00 GMT
David Fafita also comes to mind with this issue. He was never very good in Australia. But in the ESL, his last two years have been extraordinary.....he deadset looks a totally different player to the one that left Australian shores. He plays like his brother there and had been doing so for the last two years. In my mind, he deserves the the 9 despite him definitely not retaining it if he moved to the NRL today.
I think this is the one instance where we overlook realism here. But, Im okay if we do go for realism as long as we are consistent with it.
|
|
