First the table for those players who have played at least 3 games or parts of 3 games.

The table shows their average score so far this season, no of matches played, their average score for last season and the lowest and highest score obtained this season.

In general no player has improved on last season. In fact many have started this season well below their average for last year. Whereas last year all those players still with us scored on average between ‘adequate’ and excellent, this year half the squad’s average mark is below ‘adequate’. This can be demonstrated by the 29 individual match ratings of 2.5 and below – 11 of these gained at Worcester. Things are improving – zero ‘2.5 and below’ against Gloucester and Leicester.

This also means that in the seven games so far there has only been one score of 4.50 or greater: Andre Vos’s 4.50 against Newcastle.

For the other players who have run out for the team in one or two games their scores are as follows.

It is clear that Henjak had a great influence and will be missed. Easter also looks to have settled in and to be having a significant effect. Deane and Reay have maintained their above ‘adequate’ scores of last year.

When one looks at the scores given to the Backs and Forwards as units then an interesting result emerges.

The ‘unit’ score is the answer to the question Rate the Forwards/Backs. The ‘indl’ score is the average score for members of that unit. Now, I would have thought, that the unit and indl scores would be close together or even that the unit score would be greater than the average indl score – the sum being greater than the parts. But no, there is no added value for working as a unit – in fact the opposite. On only one occasion, the Backs against Newcastle, was there any added value. And as for the Forwards against Worcester, individually they were deemed ‘adequate’ on average but as a unit ‘poor’ some full two grades lower!

Why is this? Is it that we have a group of good individuals who cannot perform together? I personally do not think so. Is it that when we rate individuals we give them the benefit of the doubt? That is we tend to overrate individuals and be more extreme/harsh when rating the units. After all, scoring the Forwards ‘poor’ could not be seen as an attack on any particular individual.

Finally, the people without whom there would be no match. The referees.

This shows the extremes of quality between those referring the ZP. Enough said.

If anyone has any suggestions for other ways of analyzing the data please let me know and I’ll give it a go. We’ve looked at discarding everyone’s worst score (their nightmare match) previously – OK it increases their overall average BUT makes little difference in the order of players when ranked against each other. I plan to do the next report in the New Year.