STATS SHOW WE ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT THESES DIVAS

05TIGZ

New member
The Sydney Morning Herald

The stunning stat that proves Wests Tigers are better off without the 'big four'

Adrian Proszenko

Wests Tigers have bent over backwards to keep them, but this stunning stat suggests the club is better off without the "big four".

James Tedesco, Aaron Woods, Mitchell Moses and Luke Brooks have taken the field together on 35 occasions since 2014\. According to Champion data, the quartet have notched just 13 victories together, for a winning percentage of 37 per cent.

Tigers fans are still coming to terms with the fact they will lose three of their local juniors – Moses to Parramatta, Woods to Canterbury and Tedesco to the Roosters. However, the alarmingly low strike rate when they are all fit and available should soften the blow as the club prepares to raid the open market with a war chest approaching the $4 million mark.

A breakdown of the statistics shows the Tigers are more likely to sing the team song when only three of the quartet are available, with the winning percentage rising to 45 per cent. That figure drops to 36 per cent when only two are present, while the join-venture outfit has lost on the one occasion when just one of the "big four" were available.

One stat that may prompt coach Ivan Cleary to grant Moses an early release is this: the team actually performs better without him, winning 60 per cent of the time when he's out injured. The figure drops to 34 per cent when he takes the field.

Cleary has plenty of money and now must work out how to best spend it. Given the turmoil that has surrounded the club in recent seasons, there are fears marquee players may demand "overs" to head to Concord. However, the Tigers could benefit if rival clubs are forced to offload talent after overestimating the salary cap figure for next year and beyond. The NRL has already warned clubs that contracts won't be registered unless they comply with the nominal figure of $8.7 million that is currently before the players' association in collective bargaining negotiations.

The Tigers have identified props Ben Matulino and Russell Packer as potential replacements for Woods. They have missed out on the signature of Gareth Widdop, who has signed a four-year extension with the Dragons, although they could be the beneficiaries of an expected fire sale of Canterbury talent.

While the Tigers are chasing big names, Jack Littlejohn is hoping they will see the value of retaining him. The playmaker has been filling in for the injured Brooks, who is attempting to prove his fitness in time for Sunday's clash with Canterbury. Littlejohn is hoping to earn a regular starting spot and a new contract before the season is out.

"I've always seen myself as a first grade player," Littlejohn said.

"I think I've been proving that over the last few weeks. It all depends on what the coach wants – if he wants me to hang around and be that player or be that back-up half. I can play anywhere on the field, so I'm happy to fill that role if they see fit.

"The halves are definitely my position, but playing hooker isn't too bad, I don't mind getting in there and mixing it with the big boys. But halves is definitely my spot."

Cleary refused Moses' requests for an early departure. If Moses was to leave it would give Littlejohn more opportunities to prove himself.

"Definitely it comes across your mind, the opportunities I'd get if he did leave," he said.

"In saying that, the best thing for the team would be if he stays because he's such a class player, there's no denying that."

The Tigers have won just two games all season and risk falling out of play-off contention with another loss to the Bulldogs.

Hooker Matt McIlwrick hasn't given up hope of playing finals football this year.

"That's football, you win two games in a row and you're near the [top] eight again," McIlwrick said.

"We're not holding our heads down, we know we're not far from that. We just have to play good footy.
 
It just shows that we need to spread our money. Having 2 or 3 players take 1/3 of our salary cap means we could never give them the cattle to get us where we want to be. If we can bolster our forward pack and add a few decent backs i dont think we could do worse then what these divas have delivered for us so far.
 
@ said:
It just shows that we need to spread our money. Having 2 or 3 players take 1/3 of our salary cap means we could never give them the cattle to get us where we want to be. If we can bolster our forward pack and add a few decent backs i dont think we could do worse then what these divas have delivered for us so far.

Agreed
 
@ said:
@ said:
It just shows that we need to spread our money. Having 2 or 3 players take 1/3 of our salary cap means we could never give them the cattle to get us where we want to be. If we can bolster our forward pack and add a few decent backs i dont think we could do worse then what these divas have delivered for us so far.

Agreed

X3
 
Kind of meaningless stats.

Apparently our win rate when all 4 are present is crap, but it's equally crap when just two are present. The only time it peaks is when just one is missing.

So arguably you only need to lose one of the Big 4 to improve the win rate. They finger Moses. And fair enough, our win rate drops when the other players are missing, but increases for Moses.

But they only have 1 game where 3 are missing, so there's no data for how we perform with most of the Big 4 out.

Tigers all-time win rate is 43.20% but only 39.24% since (and including) 2014\. So it's bad and The Big 4 haven't helped it go up. But it's not correct to say the win rate will improve when they leave, because they don't have data, just that the Tigers win rate is poor when they play, which we already knew.
 
@ said:
Kind of meaningless stats.

Apparently our win rate when all 4 are present is crap, but it's equally crap when just two are present. The only time it peaks is when just one is missing.

So arguably you only need to lose one of the Big 4 to improve the win rate. They finger Moses. And fair enough, our win rate drops when the other players are missing, but increases for Moses.

But they only have 1 game where 3 are missing, so there's no data for how we perform with most of the Big 4 out.

Tigers all-time win rate is 43.20% but only 39.24% since (and including) 2014\. So it's bad and The Big 4 haven't helped it go up. But it's not correct to say the win rate will improve when they leave, because they don't have data, just that the Tigers win rate is poor when they play, which we already knew.

You couldn't let us enjoy a non hooper article could you. Just joking.
 
@ said:
Kind of meaningless stats.

Apparently our win rate when all 4 are present is crap, but it's equally crap when just two are present. The only time it peaks is when just one is missing.

So arguably you only need to lose one of the Big 4 to improve the win rate. They finger Moses. And fair enough, our win rate drops when the other players are missing, but increases for Moses.

But they only have 1 game where 3 are missing, so there's no data for how we perform with most of the Big 4 out.

Tigers all-time win rate is 43.20% but only 39.24% since (and including) 2014\. So it's bad and The Big 4 haven't helped it go up. But it's not correct to say the win rate will improve when they leave, because they don't have data, just that the Tigers win rate is poor when they play, which we already knew.

So at the very least we got nothing to lose, and the big gain will be having players here that want to be here.
 
Classic… The stupid just get stupider!

Don't worry about the other 10 or so plodders around the 4, it's Moses fault, or it must be Teddy's fault.
:deadhorse:
 
@ said:
Classic… The stupid just get stupider!

Don't worry about the other 10 or so plodders around the 4, it's Moses fault, or it must be Teddy's fault.
:deadhorse:

Not Simona's fault..that's for sure…
 
Win rates with the Three younger players are misleading as most of the halves are with them being rookies for most of their time here. Woods figures would have a bit more meaning as he has been a senior player for a long period.
Of coursethe halves would be down as they were not only rookies, but were not that great as players. It would be expected that their win rates would be better when they were more experienced.
Not sure but I think that our win rates were down when Woods didn't play. They were when Farah was out.
 
@ said:
It just shows that we need to spread our money. Having 2 or 3 players take 1/3 of our salary cap means we could never give them the cattle to get us where we want to be. If we can bolster our forward pack and add a few decent backs i dont think we could do worse then what these divas have delivered for us so far.

x 4
 
Well,all I can say is,if you spend 1/3 of your cap on young potential,developing and tutoring them to become great players,you end up with a poor winning rate and they go elsewhere apparently..
Certainly hope the club has learnt a lesson…
 
Articles like this are just trying to paint a positive picture. The stats aren't that different really when compared to our overall win loss rate. We have had a less then 50% win rate since 2014 anyway. At the end of the day it's never good to lose 3 high quality players. It's worse when they don't have quality around them, like us. We have a chance to come out with a more balanced squad by getting rid of the dead wood and filling the team with decent 1st grades, I doubt we will luring any superstars at this point so we just need players who can put in.
 
@ said:
Classic… The stupid just get stupider!

Don't worry about the other 10 or so plodders around the 4, it's Moses fault, or it must be Teddy's fault.
:deadhorse:

Thats the whole point which i dont think you were smart enough to realise that you made. We didnt win with them in the team as we couldn't give them the cattle they needed to support them. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So lets sign them up and give them so much money that we cant build an all round good team and expect our results to change.
 
@ said:
Articles like this are just trying to paint a positive picture. The stats aren't that different really when compared to our overall win loss rate. We have had a less then 50% win rate since 2014 anyway. At the end of the day it's never good to lose 3 high quality players. It's worse when they don't have quality around them, like us. We have a chance to come out with a more balanced squad by getting rid of the dead wood and filling the team with decent 1st grades, I doubt we will luring any superstars at this point so we just need players who can put in.

We've only won > 50% of games 3 times in our history, you can guess which seasons.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Classic… The stupid just get stupider!

Don't worry about the other 10 or so plodders around the 4, it's Moses fault, or it must be Teddy's fault.
:deadhorse:

Thats the whole point which i dont think you were smart enough to realise that you made. We didnt win with them in the team as we couldn't give them the cattle they needed to support them. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So lets sign them up and give them so much money that we cant build an all round good team and expect our results to change.

Bit like Melbourne I reckon…always trying to copy...
 
@ said:
Kind of meaningless stats.

Apparently our win rate when all 4 are present is crap, but it's equally crap when just two are present. The only time it peaks is when just one is missing.

So arguably you only need to lose one of the Big 4 to improve the win rate. They finger Moses. And fair enough, our win rate drops when the other players are missing, but increases for Moses.

But they only have 1 game where 3 are missing, so there's no data for how we perform with most of the Big 4 out.

Tigers all-time win rate is 43.20% but only 39.24% since (and including) 2014\. So it's bad and The Big 4 haven't helped it go up. But it's not correct to say the win rate will improve when they leave, because they don't have data, just that the Tigers win rate is poor when they play, which we already knew.

Indeed. Whoever put this data together clearly doesn't understand the concept of a small sample size.
 
One thing stats can't show is that we will have a better balanced team . Bigger forwards an more all round talent . Look at Canberra which has very few state of origin players but is so well balanced with massive forwards an solid backs
 
Back
Top