Thanks for taking the time to reply and explain your ratings
system. Before the explanation I would have thought 5 to be
an average or pass mark so only seeing one player under this
mark on a 3 and 7 team was confusing. I still don't
necessarily agree with these scores but everybody is entitled
to their opinion.
I do however agree on your comments regarding too much of the
same. The team on a whole appears very limited. The Otago
forwards got enough possession to win more games but the lack
of physicality and ball runners as well as having a very
average halves combination is meaning we are not placing
enough pressure on other teams defensive systems.
Hopefully next season things improve but I think that whoever
the new coach may be has a real challenge on their hands.
Answer: Hi ballmunger, thanks for your comment, happy to
answer your question. There is a different formula for these
ratings than the game player ratings. Firstly I decide on a
scale. In general, six is a pass, seven is good with maybe a
few average games, eight you were consistently very good,
nine you pretty much carried the team. Five you were probably
not overly flash, a bit below average, but were not
necessarily bad either; just not really doing things well and
a bit non-existent. Below five you were consistently poor and
having a negative impact.
For each individual I went through and looked at what they
did well, what they didn't, where they were lacking etc. and
also how consistent they were, how many games they played
well in and how many they didn't. Got to give players credit
for what they did well, as well as take marks off for what
they didn't do well. Some were quite hard given the range of
performances they had. Someone like Charlie O'Connell, very
good early on, but then really exposed later on in the
season. You cannot just ignore his good early performances,
so had to meet somewhere in the middle. After fitting
everyone into the scale, I then averaged out my game player
ratings for everyone for the season and looked at how they
stacked up and made adjustments where necessary (there was
only one adjustment made).
I would agree that they do not reflect the performances of
the second half of the season. However, I believe that this
is more a limitation of Player Ratings. They rate players
based on how they played individually. Many of Otago's
problems were selection issues or that they did not act well
as a collective. Too much of the same. The forwards were all
good as individuals, but there was no impact there. Had there
been another strong running-type player, they probably would
have been fine doing what they were doing. Doesn't mean they
have played any better. It is hard to reflect this in player
ratings, which is why a team analysis - which is coming - is
needed to complement them.
Also keep in mind that there were only four games where Otago
really were awful and at times they were actually very good.
Hope this at least sheds some light on how these ratings were
come up with.
Look on this team as a product in the entertainment sector.
No different to a group of people putting on a show at
the Regent. There is a major difference though.
This rugby product is being subsidised by all
ratepayers by a variety of means - some open and some hidden.
Unlike the show at the Regent which not only has to
meet actual costs but it then needs to show a profit.
Ticket prices need to substantially increase for Otago
matches at the rugby stadium, and based on the woeful
performances of this semi-professional team along with their
ratepayer subsidised operation floundering round the bottom
of the second tier, it is clear that if this were to happen
then attendances would move from pathetic to almost
non-existent. Is it not time to pull the plug on this
product which is no longer meeting customer expectations?
Use their ORFU "profit" to pay back the City what it is
owed and concentrate on providing services to amateur rugby
which deserves some encouragement.
Let's hope most of the current bunch can work on their game
and improve for 2015. Renton did seem to be improving
towards the end of the season (although still not up to NPC
standard). Renata was a huge disapointment, he was solid
without doing anything special for the Highlanders - in the
last few NPC games he s been on automatic pilot
sleepwalking through games. He should go unless the new coach
thinks he ll put in a decent effort.
Still, I'm a fan of picking home-grown talent or making
players that come south play the club
season. Forking out the dosh to
import players has failed before and doesn't do anything
for the long term health of the game in Otago.
Let's hope the new coach can get more out the team in 2015.
Not saying we need to buy in a heap of players but 2-3
positions actually cost us matches this year -
- Trent Renata must go
- New halfback
- Some solid midfiled backs not those two there now that cant
tackle and dont have size to make a break
- A decent number 8 with some skills and go forward.
Lastly the ORFU should remember that ifthe team continues to
perform so badly people will stop spending hard earned money
to see a team languish at the bottom of the second tier year
after year, and that will then affect cash which will affect
the operation. It's a bad cycle and a fine balancing act
which I don't think they have quite right. Why pay to watch a
bunch of club level players be bashed around each week when
you can go watch it for free any Saturday at parks all across