Declining Standards - Myth or Reality?

[Maximus Decimus]

Rugby League fans are known for being a miserable lot but even factoring that in, the idea that standards have declined seems to be a very prevalent one that is mentioned regularly during and after a game.

We are talking largely about handling errors and the idea that games are scrappier than they used to be because the number of dropped passes and knock ons is greater than in the past. You rarely hear it mentioned that defences are worse, which by the standard of RL fans means that they must be pretty decent. I will admit that I've thought this about handling errors and often there will be spells in games where it seems like there is a knock on in every set. However, I also know that memory is fallible and the desire to look back on things with rose tinted spectacles is a strong one.

As a data nerd then I wondered if there was any way that we could quantify this. The obvious place to look was the Opta stats and they go back in detail to 2003 for clubs. However, there were problems with this as it doesn't state which games are included meaning it was impossible to find an average, this is especially complicated with the Super 8s and playoffs. Also last season includes Widnes and Catalan in the data twice with different stats each time. Bit of a problem for reliability that one.

They also show information for individual games going back to 2007. As a test I thought I'd look at the first 20 games from 2007 and 2018 to see if there was any noticeable difference. Here was the average number of errors for the games.

 

2007: 19.6 errors per game

2018: 24.2 errors per game

 

I'll admit, I was expecting there to be no real difference, certainly not nearly 5 errors per game or an increase of nearly 25%. There are however a few things to note from these statistics that could also explain the difference. 

1) Early in the year, weather could be a factor. We've certainly had more extreme weather than usual and the error rate was a little lower for the last few games of the 20.

2) Errors is quite a vague term and doesn't only mean handling errors. Opta could have changed the way they collate the information.

3) An increase in errors doesn't necessarily mean worse handling. Defences could have got better at dislodging the ball, in my experience the ball often comes free in the tackle. 

The results are certainly intriguing enough to suggest a deeper look.

 

On a separate note if the difference is because of poorer handling, when did it start? The reason I say is because I can remember a concrete example from early April 2013. I was in York watching Catalan-Leeds in a pub and remember there being talk about the new Rhino ball resulting in a lot of handling errors. I can distinctly remember thinking that game was a very scrappy one and wondering whether the ball was a factor. There were 24 errors in this game which is about average for the first 20 games of this year. Read into that what you will.

 

[Futtocks]

Increased errors could also be down to more adventurous play - more risk of mistakes. I'd have done the stats comparison with the full 2017 season instead of the first handful of rounds from this year.

[GUBRATS]

Declining standards due to increased cheating , mostly brought in by Australian coaches pushing boring % based game plans 

 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

4 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Increased errors could also be down to more adventurous play - more risk of mistakes. I'd have done the stats comparison with the full 2017 season instead of the first handful of rounds from this year.

I agree, Futtocks.  I am not a statistician by profession, but have often had to use statistics in my work; I would have thought the sample size in 2018 is too small as yet, to allow a reliable comparison.

[Ullman]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Declining standards due to increased cheating , mostly brought in by Australian coaches pushing boring % based game plans 

 

Max's point is about the rate of handling errors. You'd expect that approach would lead to a reduction not an increase. 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Ullman said:

Max's point is about the rate of handling errors. You'd expect that approach would lead to a reduction not an increase. 

Not when their focus is about messing about slowing down the PTB with wrestling , the constant leaning on the attacker again at the PTB 

The priority being position and then gaining possession in the opposition half rather than open attacking play 

[Ullman]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not when their focus is about messing about slowing down the PTB with wrestling , the constant leaning on the attacker again at the PTB 

The priority being position and then gaining possession in the opposition half rather than open attacking play 

I hate that approach to the game too. Does my noggin in when coaches and players start banging on about set completion and getting to the kick as if it's the be-all and end-all of the sport now.

I just wasn't sure it was relevant to the point.  

[Maximus Decimus]

24 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I agree, Futtocks.  I am not a statistician by profession, but have often had to use statistics in my work; I would have thought the sample size in 2018 is too small as yet, to allow a reliable comparison.

I did address this as saying it is certainly a reason to investigate further but isn't enough to draw conclusions from. 

This is especially true as it superficially backs up what many have thought was the case. 

[Maximus Decimus]

28 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Increased errors could also be down to more adventurous play - more risk of mistakes. I'd have done the stats comparison with the full 2017 season instead of the first handful of rounds from this year.

The reason I didn't compare to 2017 is because this is something that has been talked about for a few years not just this year. 

I did also intend to mention your first point but rather than adventurous I'd suggest maybe attacking teams pushing it because defences have improved. I'm thinking more a flat bullet pass close to the line rather than adventuorus play. 

[Marty Funkhouser]

31 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Increased errors could also be down to more adventurous play - more risk of mistakes. I'd have done the stats comparison with the full 2017 season instead of the first handful of rounds from this year.

More adventurous play...?????

I think we can safely rule that out as a factor......

[DavidM]

19 minutes ago, Ullman said:

I hate that approach to the game too. Does my noggin in when coaches and players start banging on about set completion and getting to the kick as if it's the be-all and end-all of the sport now.

I just wasn't sure it was relevant to the point.  

Completely agree , going off topic or not . The parroting of the same things regarding completions , get to the kick etc... I always thought it was what you did with the ball ? Yesterday the comms were talking about the warriors poor completion rate and the Titans perfection - and they were getting shellacked . Also I’m sick n tired of the total obsession with stats and how they are invading every facet of the game and people live by them and tell us how a players doing by what they say . I see the correlation but they can be overwheening nowadays and can make the game and players robotic and unthinking 

[Mark S]

There has been a clear increase in handling errors, which can spoil a game, however the constant cheating and playing for penalties is the most negative element of the game at the moment. There are 2 teams* that introduced this into the game, but the rest have taken up the challenge and run with it.

The constant diving, wrapping legs round a tackling players and moving off the mark needs nipping in the bud. Also, teams suddenly losing the ball when they have conceded a drop out (something they Kevin Sinfield mastered) can shut up and go away.

*I won’t mention the teams as it upsets peolple on here.

[terrywebbisgod]

The ball change has had more of an impact than most either think or believe.

Even junior teams (certainly at my son's club) prefer the Steeden ball over the Rhino ball,with most players complaining about the grip level of the Rhino ball.

Although I'm sure I'd heard that the company had worked on improving the grip level of their match balls.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, terrywebbisgod said:

The ball change has had more of an impact than most either think or believe.

Even junior teams (certainly at my son's club) prefer the Steeden ball over the Rhino ball,with most players complaining about the grip level of the Rhino ball.

Although I'm sure I'd heard that the company had worked on improving the grip level of their match balls.

Ive provided a very small sample of stats which suggests that the Steeden ball in the World Cup didnt deliver fewer errors.

[terrywebbisgod]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Ive provided a very small sample of stats which suggests that the Steeden ball in the World Cup didnt deliver fewer errors.

 

I'm just going on what I'm told by people who use both brands of ball but if there is evidence they are both as bad as each other,that's fair enough.

[dkw]

I think those numbers could also be related to the time the ball is in play,  as I expect that also has risen since 2007 with the rule changes ( 7 tackles, no scrum for 40-20 etc).

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, terrywebbisgod said:

 

I'm just going on what I'm told by people who use both brands of ball but if there is evidence they are both as bad as each other,that's fair enough.

It is a very small sample tbf and was goin g off  the regular criticism of the ball.

During the Hull v Wire game recently people were moaning about the number of errors, yet the error count was better than the World Cup final which was deemed a classic and excellent sta dard with many legends playing the game.

Perception is a funny thing. The Steeden balls didnt help England at all during the WC, our error count was highlighted week in week out.

 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Completely agree , going off topic or not . The parroting of the same things regarding completions , get to the kick etc... I always thought it was what you did with the ball ? Yesterday the comms were talking about the warriors poor completion rate and the Titans perfection - and they were getting shellacked . Also I’m sick n tired of the total obsession with stats and how they are invading every facet of the game and people live by them and tell us how a players doing by what they say . I see the correlation but they can be overwheening nowadays and can make the game and players robotic and unthinking 

You are not alone, DM.  Sophisticated research shows that 87.34% of the RL-following public agree with you on that!

[Futtocks]

Also, factor in the number of complaints from two sources.

1. Relentless peddlers of negativity, whatever the subject.

2. People who hark back to a better era... that just happens to be exactly when their club was doing much better than it is now.

 

[redjonn]

10 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

The decline in standards is an absolute myth. The question that never gets answered: how does increased knowledge of strength and conditioning, increased professionalism, bigger coaching teams, more sophisticated video analysis, greater nutritional and psychological support, as well as developments in understanding of RL and improved pedagogy all culminate in a lower standard? 

Even watching games from 10-15 years ago, they would lose to most teams today. Even if the players physically hadn't changed, there is a massive improvement with regards to ball control, control of the ruck and so on which the team from 10 years ago couldn't live with.

I think you could make the argument that the game of 10 years ago allowed greater opportunity for the expression of attacking skills. Quicker play the balls because the defence were less competent at winning the collision or wrestling, more offloads because there was less emphasis on ball control and controlling territory, as two examples. But that is entirely different to saying that standards have dropped. You could also make the argument that the salary cap is finally having the desired impact which is spreading the good players more equally, meaning if you examine any one team there is fewer strong players than in the past, even if throughout the league there is more. 

If standards have dropped because teams are trying to play a structured style of rugby or whatever, there would be a clear incentive to go away from that - you would win the competition. My final question would be have standards also dropped in Australia? 

I tend to agree with your comments with regard to the starting team (so to speak), however I think you need to take account of the overall squad.

All squads have a relative high number of youngsters/academy or just out the academy players.  It doesn't take many injuries for those players to be in the starting team.  I think this must impact overall quality if games have many inexperienced still developing youngsters in the team.

Of course need those players to gain experience and hence not debating whether its a good thing or not. For me the salary cap being so low must mean you can only fill a squad with players prepared to accept low wages. That is academy and fringe players who more often and not often go out on loan to championship but brought back for injury needs. Alternatively they don't play much and hence skills in the heat of action are bound to be lower.

 

[Mark S]

There is one obvious change from 10-15 years ago and that is the size an shape of the players. In the early 2000s the size of players was consistent across most teams, there were some exceptions. However, there does seem to be a focus on core strength these days, as opposed going for pure size. 

[Dave T]

I think other than pub chat, I think there is little reason to compare to past generations. There are some who pine for the good old days, but in reality I dont think actual standards should be affecting crowds and viewing figures.

Even watching a rubbish Wire last year was light years ahead of watching them 15 to 20 years ago and seeing some of the names playing for them. 

I think we need to be careful with the constant talking down of the game - not aimed T MD by the way, because often we are critical of it in a loving way, we are often guilty of telling it as it is to anyone who will listen.

The 6N has been all over the TV this weekend and the bits I saw were rubbish, but they will have huge tv and spectator figures.

[Futtocks]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think other than pub chat, I think there is little reason to compare to past generations. There are some who pine for the good old days, but in reality I dont think actual standards should be affecting crowds and viewing figures.

Even watching a rubbish Wire last year was light years ahead of watching them 15 to 20 years ago and seeing some of the names playing for them. 

I think we need to be careful with the constant talking down of the game - not aimed T MD by the way, because often we are critical of it in a loving way, we are often guilty of telling it as it is to anyone who will listen.

The 6N has been all over the TV this weekend and the bits I saw were rubbish, but they will have huge tv and spectator figures.

We don't need to talk the game down; we have professional journalists to do it for us. Two World Cups ago, Chris Irvine was filing some excellent and insightful articles, without  glossing over negatives. Since then, he's turned into Marvin the Paranoid Android. Nigel Wiskar seems immune, though.

And as for "telling it as it is", that is all too often used as an excuse for being permanently knee-jerk negative, without ever having to justify yourself.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Futtocks said:

We don't need to talk the game down; we have professional journalists to do it for us. Two World Cups ago, Chris Irvine was filing some excellent and insightful articles, without  glossing over negatives. Since then, he's turned into Marvin the Paranoid Android. Nigel Wiskar seems immune, though.

And as for "telling it as it is", that is all too often used as an excuse for being permanently knee-jerk negative, without ever having to justify yourself.

They aren't cheerleaders you know!

Agree 100% and that is exactly what 'telling it as it is' was referring to.

[redjonn]

26 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

Yeah I could see that argument, and it's one of the reasons I'd be happy to see the salary cap at least go up with inflation. With that said, if the salary cap increased 20% tomorrow, beyond Australia (and we still wouldn't get many particularly good players from there), where would these better players come from caused by increased wages?

I did wonder about how the squad depth of now compared to 10 years ago. I wanted to find a full Saints squad for 2006 (our all-conquering year), but had to settle for 2007 instead - these are the people outside of the first choice 17:

8. Mike Bennett 
19. Paul Clough 
20. Bryn Hargreaves
21. Ian Hardman 
22. Ste Tyrer 
23. Scott Moore
24. Matty Smith (before being loaned out to Widnes, Celtic Crusaders and Salford)
25. Ste Bannister 
26. Dean Mcgilvray 
27. Dave Roughly

Is that really any stronger than this year? Saints made the Grand Final that year too.

mmm hard to say... to be honest, was their more experience in that lot. I would imagine that the squad nowadays is how you said, physically stronger. I think defences are harder to break down even from 10 years ago, hence need more attacking prowess and being prepared to "try things" which would lead to errors. Plus the x3 or 4 in the tackle and off-loading desire may mean more errors

Its all subjective I guess.