View Single Post
07-19-2007, 12:47 AM
CycloneLaunch's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Zealand
Country: New Zealand-Maori
Posts: 12,597
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by clefty View Post
Oh please, for and against?! Come on! Let me guess, you look at +/- to judge a hockey player defensively, right?

I'm going to say it again- this is the FOURTH time now- you can't look at points and make a judgement call on the defensive play of a rugby team. Australia played without the ball for most of the half. They had far more attacking raids to defend against that game than New Zealand did. Just like the more shots a goalie faces, the higher the percentages that he's going to allow a goal. Doesn't mean the guy who allows 3 goals on 40 shots has played worse than the guy who allows one on 15, does it?

For and against is indicator of both defense AND attack. A team that wins 50-40 will have a better for and against differential than a team that wins a game 12-9. But who has had the better defensive game?

I don't mind you disagreeing (I think you're very wrong, but whatever), but if we're going to mention for and against here, we may as well not bother.

I'm going to see if i can find a stat for this, because i would say they were roughly similar if not slightly in favour of NZ, Australia in the first half had several chances to score but were held out. But i could be wrong.

NZ has conceded less points in the Tri-Nats than Australia, combined with what i've seen, i'd say that Australia would only JUST edge out the All Blacks defensive wise. I can't see how that's a bad judgement, and i do not why you would think Australia is by far the best defensive side in the world. Man to man the only position where i would say Australia is clearly ahead defensively is Centre.

And no i do not judge a hockey player defensive prowess solely on +/-.

CycloneLaunch is offline