Rugby League World Cup Data Visualisation Project - What Combinations Score For England

This is a follow up to the Six Nations 2021 project.  In the summary for that I said, "It would be interesting to see how things like this look in sports with rolling subs (odd that there's a Rugby League World Cup this year that might fill that gap ;) )". 

It was a good plan, it was just that the Rugby League World Cup was delayed for a year. 

But it's here now.  

Since what I am interested in is whether having rolling substitutes affects the shape of the patterns, I will focus on a single team. I have, for reasons of obvious bias, chosen England. 

England's first match was versus Samoa, and I was expecting it to be close and tight. There was always the chance that it was going to be a blow out victory for England against a Samoan team who hadn't had any warm-up games. But I don't think even the most optimistic England fan (or pessimistic Samoan fan) was expecting a score of 60-6 for England (match report here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/63271368). 

Okay, so that should have given me plenty of data to work with. Shame that the official RLWC site didn't have any stats, nor did the BBC. 

Luckily for me, NRL.com did have the info. 

For the first game, all the information came from here - https://www.nrl.com/draw/rugby-league-world-cup/2022/round-1/england-v-toa-samoa/

When do England score?   

 

The points come in waves, basically at 20 minutes, 45 and then 60-80 when Samoa ran out of energy, players because three of them had either broken bones, dislocated hips or injured ligaments I've never even heard of and were a man down due to Anthony Milford being sin-binned for a late tackle.

Who scores for England?    

Tommy Makinson, so England can join Saints fans in the traditional pastime of hoping he doesn't get injured.

Who was on the pitch when England scored?   

 

And then same but as percentages: 

 

I'm going to watch how this changes, and, at the end of tournament correct for percentage of games played. At the moment it mostly shows which forwards were being rotated out (about which, more next).

Network diagram and matrix diagram of which players were on the pitch together when England scored     

After 1 game, the network diagram doesn't tell us much, but the matrix diagram interests me. 

Okay, so forwards play together less than the backs, that's expected - forward are the players you sub on and off to keep them fresh. 

What I didn't expect was the pattern: 

Morgan Knowles (LF, SR) and Matty Lees (Prop) played together infrequently, which is odd since they play different positions. 

Matty Lees (Prop) and Chris Hill (Prop) not playing together makes more sense because they're both props. 

Michael McIlorum (hooker) and Chris Hill (Prop) and Tom Burgess (Prop) not playing together is odd, because, again, not the same position 

Mike Cooper (Prop, LF) and Chris Hill (Prop) and Thomas Burgess (Prop) and Chris Hill (Prop) and Tom Burgess (Prop) not playing together, again, makes sense because they'd be prop for prop replacements. 

The two "proper" forwards that played the full 80 minutes were Mike McMeeken (second row) and Elliot Whitehead (also second row). It's both interesting, given the pre-tournament chat about Whitehead's age, and not surprising because McMeeken is the second most underrated player in Super League. 

The thing that strikes me is that there was a period of the game, when McIlorum was off the pitch, when there was no recognised hooker on the pitch. In fact, had anything happened to McIlorum, there was no other recognised hooker in the matchday squad - Shaun Wane has only picked two of them, McIlorum and Andy Ackers. 

Now I'm sure that someone, probably Victor Radley, could have deputised but it's a risky tack to take. 

Obviously, I'll keep updating these as the tournament carries on. I'm also going to look at who is on the pitch when England concede. However, at the moment, it's an uninformative set of information. 

The R project is here https://github.com/fulltimesportsfan/RLWC2021/blob/a49975981f6054b70a48b7b265a86b5a6d599d61/Rugby%20League%20World%20Cup%202021%20Summary.R 

I've fixed all the random movies and casts. I think it's given me a better idea of how the code works. 

Json file if you want to do cooler things with it is here - https://github.com/fulltimesportsfan/RLWC2021/blob/35effbc084c65f3383e420f02ccfaf81524ac1b1/England1stgame.json

Rugby League World Cup 2021/2022

Much like the last Olympics, I am not sure if we're giving this the number of the year it should have been in or the number of the year it is in. 

Whatever we're calling it, it kicks off tomorrow with what is probably the most interesting match of the group stage, England, the hosts, vs Samoa. 

Partly I am just excited to see international rugby league again, but partly this could be a stormer of a match. Or it could be a completely implosion of either side. It's that lovely thrill of the unknown. 

Because on paper, Samoa should be excellent, and England are coming in with a few injuries and short at least two players who I think would have been in the starting 13. But rugby is played on pitches not paper, and this is a Samoa team who haven't played together often and ... oooh it could be interesting. 

The other rugby league fan at work (a Salford fan for his sins) feels much the same way as I do. It's all very oooooh. 

In group B, Australia vs Fiji could be good, if Fiji play like they did last World Cup, or it could be appalling, if they play like they did in their warm-up game (England 50-0 Fiji, Fiji you are better than that.) 

In group C, Ireland vs Lebanon is probably the most intriguing match, because Lebanon (coached by Michael Cheika, yes that Michael Cheika) come together nicely for World Cups and Ireland look solid, and neither team have ever lacked heart and effort. 

Group D features the other candidate for the potentially most interesting match - Tonga vs Papua New Guinea. Tonga, lead by the ever-wonderful Kristian Woolf, ex-Saints coach and based in St Helens and training with our academy boys Tonga, vs Papua New Guinea, the national team of the only country on the planet that has rugby league as it's national sport. 

The rugby will be beautiful, the score unpredictable. 

I've made the usual network diagrams. 

Due to the number of New Zealandish, Fijian, Samoan and Australian players that play on the same teams, that part of the diagram is tightly clustered so I've had to tweak the settings to make that part readable.  

Everyone else is much more spread out. 

The national team closest to the centre, pretty much bang on centre in fact, are the Cook Islands, with Leeds being the club team closest to the centre. 

These diagrams would have been posted sooner, but a couple of players had to be replaced at the last minute by some of the teams so I had to make a last minute update. Interestingly, before that, there were no Hull F.C. players, but both replacement players play for Hull. I had thought it odd that there weren't any. 

The Penrith Panthers are the club team with the most players present, with 19, followed by Catalan Dragons with 18 (not all playing for France) and South Sydney Rabbitohs with 17. 

The community view of the network diagrams is also interesting.  

There are 16 teams in this group stage but they fit into just 13 communities. Samoa and New Zealand are 1 community, as are Fiji and Australia and so are England and Ireland. The other teams are their own separate communities. 

Certainly I'd expect the winners to come from the Australia/New Zealand/Fiji/Samoa cluster, and even with a team with 13 players making their debut Australia are still strong favourites. 

I was hoping to have similar diagrams for the Women's World Cup and the Wheelchair World Cup, which are being held at the same time as one giant festival of rugby league, but unfortunately, most reports don't name the club teams the players play for. 

If I can find the information, I will make the diagrams.

Formula 1 2022 - There will be no review of the Japanese Grand Prix

There will be no review of the Japanese Grand Prix because it has become obvious that the people running the Japanese Grand Prix do not care about previous Japanese Grand Prix so I don't see why I should.

What could have happened to Pierre Gasly is unforgiveable.

Motorsports will never be completely safe, but that just makes it more important that people who run races reduce risk where possible.  

Having a tractor-type truck on track while drivers are racing in poor visibility in rainy conditions that lead to poor ability to control the car is a known danger - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63190448

Jules Bianchi sustained the injuries that killed him at Suzuka in precisely those circumstances.

After the investigation, once that combination of factors was identified, everyone involved with the Japanese Grand Prix and Suzuka circuit said "never again".  

I don't think doing the same thing 8 years later counts as never again.

Formula 1 2022 - Singapore Grand Prix

Other than actually winning, as a Ferrari fan, I can't see any way the Singapore Grand Prix could have gone much better for us. 

The inevitable was delayed that little bit longer, and for once, we were not the most incompetent. 

I mean, there was one moment of glorious Ferrari idiocy but one per weekend is less than usual.

Ferrari just managed an unsafe release with their own car #SingaporeGP pic.twitter.com/9WBxBmeFMO

— WTF1 (@wtf1official) October 1, 2022

Despite that, I was underwhelmed by the race. Marc Priestly, on BBC commentary for the weekend, said something that I think explains it. He said that he normally doesn't like the Singapore Grand Prix because nothing happens and he wasn't sure if this year's race was interesting or whether it was just because a lot of nothing happened. 

And I think he was right. Very little actually interesting happened, but, boy, was there a lot of not interesting happening.

Sword Fighting Films - The Three Musketeers

I did warn you all that it would be a very occasional series. There are also spoilers for the book and for the way various films and adaptations vary from the book. 

There are many, many filmed versions of the Three Musketeers, and I will not cover them all. 

The Three Musketeers is an interesting beast. Like all of Dumas's work, there's a deep, multifaceted story hiding underneath the action adventure headline. When they make adaptations, they tend to stick to the broad strokes of the action adventure story. Very broadly, most of the time. That does mean that it's very easy to name the best adaptation of the Three Musketeers.

   

It's easy because it's the only one that passes both my basic requirements: 

1 - None of the Musketeers are presented as an idiot (except you know those moments when they are in the book, D'Artagnan, you hot-headed young fool) 

2 - The Cardinal is an antagonist, not a villain. 

The Cardinal was very much a foundational character for me. Here we have someone who is doing his level best to defeat our heroes, and our heroes are sworn to beat him back but even they admit he is probably a better ruler than the person they're fighting for. They're only against him because they've promised to fight for the King. 

The Cardinal, meanwhile, is a reasonable villain, he only wants what's best for France, and has no time for vendettas. He's not boo-hiss villainy and he doesn't want the crown. He just wants the King to do as he's told. 

And in this film I get *that* played by Vincent Price. (He even gets a white cat to stroke sinisterly.) 

All that, and excellent swordfights - give me a dancer and I can make a fine fencer out of them - and glorious technicolour and Lana Turner in glorious technicolour ... oh it's marvellous and perfect, and actually elides very little of the plot given when it was made. 

A lot of other people like the Michael York/Richard Lester films but for me they fail point 1 - they make Porthos an idiot and I will not stand for this because Porthos is my favourite (please don't tell the others because they are also my favourites). 

The Chris O'Donnell version fails on point 2. The Cardinal is a boo hiss villain in it - I know they had Tim Curry and temptation can be hard to resist but he can do more than just boo hiss villainy - *and* they screw up Milady. The idea of a Milady de Winter who voluntarily throws herself off a cliff misses something/everything about the character. It also messes with her death being at the hands of our heroes (or at least due to their decision to hand her over to the Axeman of Lille), and the question of "what does that make them?" It makes them our beloved, damaged broken heroes, but you know, not necessarily nice. I have had the argument in the "Dumas Club" in real life, and well, I am on Aramis's side. Although, I admit I have occasionally had problems and thought "what would the Musketeers do?" and then immediately done the opposite. As a strategy, it works. 

The Logan Lerman/Paul WS Anderson version is actually solid for all that it changes a lot, and at least it passes points 1 and 2. It could do with more Porthos (Ray Stevenson as Porthos <3 <3 <3) and I have no idea what to do with a version of Athos who gets over himself (I love you really, Athos).  It also has Christoph Waltz giving it quietly sinister as Richelieu and Freddie Fox as an adorbs King Louis and I am generally fonder of it than I ought to be.

Similarly changing everything but with enough charm to get away with it is the recent BBC Musketeers, which is very much in name only but I forgive them.  There are also two old BBC adaptations which I have not seen but would dearly love to, one with Roger Delgado as Athos, and one with Jeremy Brett as D'Artagnan and Brian Blessed as Porthos (which my mother has raved about for my entire life, but may have suffered from the BBC wiping it).

If you want something a little different I recommend Dogtanian and the Muskehounds.

<3 a="" about="" adaptations="" adorbs="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" also="" am="" an="" and="" are="" as="" athos="" away="" bbc="" be.="" blessed="" brett="" brian="" but="" changing="" charm="" christoph="" d="" dearly="" delgado="" different="" do="" dogtanian="" enough="" entire="" everything="" fonder="" for="" forgive="" fox="" frameborder="0" freddie="" from="" generally="" get="" gets="" giving="" has="" have="" height="315" himself="" i="" idea="" if="" iframe="" in="" is="" it="" jeremy="" king="" life="" little="" louis="" love="" may="" mother="" much="" muskehounds.="" musketeers="" my="" name="" no="" not="" of="" old="" one="" only="" ought="" over="" porthos="" quietly="" raved="" really="" recent="" recommend="" richelieu="" roger="" rtagnan="" seen="" similarly="" sinister="" something="" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fFWst8c_Cvk" suffered="" than="" the="" them.="" there="" title="YouTube video player" to="" two="" version="" very="" waltz="" want="" what="" which="" who="" width="560" wiping="" with="" would="" you="">  

(I, like many of my generation, can sing this song word for word without excessive thought) (If you would like to hear it in a variety of languages, please see here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQGZ_1sjjI) 

Now Dogtanian does one weird thing, which is switch Athos and Porthos's characters, but none of the Musketeers are idiots and while the Cardinal is mean, he doesn't want to be king. 

Special note, I mean the TV show not the recent film version of this. I'm not sure why the film just didn't work for me while the TV show did but it didn't. 

Avoid at all costs: The Musketeer - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246544/ 

Which is the third worst film I have ever seen. I don't know how you make the Musketeers boring and tedious, but somehow this film manages it. 

Rochefort is now mysteriously called Febre, and it Tim Roth giving it villainy (which he can do, but it just doesn't work in this film). It also has Stephen Rea as Richelieu and somehow doesn't use that to it's own advantage. 

Then again, it's also a version of the Musketeers where Athos only appears in one scene and we never see the Three Inseparables together. It's terrible and I disrecommend it utterly. 

Now for something completely different: I finish with something only partly related to the Three Musketeers, but it's thing of marvel and wonder.  

Philippe Candeloro does proper fencing footwork on ice skates!!! 

No, you need to understand - the number of actors in normal shoes who don't do proper footwork and he's doing it on ice skates. 

Technically accurate footwork on ice skates!!! 

(It is also my second favourite men's programme ever. The only thing that beats it is Yagudin's Winter short programme [although Yagudin's Man in the Iron Mask is not bad either.])

Warwick Castle

In 2019, when I found out that Warwick Castle was within walking distance of Warwick train station, I couldn't help but go. Unfortunately I wasn't co-ordinated enough to get the times right for jousting or the falconry displays, but that just gives me something to do next time. 

First I did the maze , which was Horrible Histories themed and, given it was for kiddies, remarkably easy to get lost in. 

Then I walked past the water wheel, although that whole area was very pretty. Because the castle is set it large grounds, there's a lot of wildlife - squirrels, ducks, insects I can't name but if anyone has any ideas I am willing to listen ... Also, peacocks, lots of peacocks, who will steal your burgers if you give them half a chance.  

One of the more interesting things I learnt that day, this is what the back of a peacock looks like when it's displaying The same peacock from the front They've shored up the walls so you can do a whole wall walk, which I definitely recommend because you get some excellent views of the castle. I shan't spoil the history you hear because it's very interesting.  

Also, there's a trebuchet. Part of the reason I missed the falconry was that my slot in the Chamber of Horrors happened to clash with it. Chamber of Horrors was lots of fun and screaming, and some theatre-types given gainful employment horrifying us. 

I did manage to catch the end of the falconry display, followed by one of the birds going AWOL and landing in the tree above me. I did ask the handler what you did in those situations - the answer is you wait because they will get bored. Attitude of handler very much "Mum waiting for teenager who has stayed out beyond agreed time".  

I had a whale of a time, the only downside being that, amongst all the things they were selling (mostly aimed at small children who enjoy playing with swords and bows and arrows ... so me), there wasn't a guidebook or history of the castle. If anyone can recommend a good history of Warwick Castle, I'd be grateful. 

I haven't had chance to go back yet, but I definitely want to. I might not choose a Monday because the rest of the town centre was mostly shut and there were several interesting looking shops I wanted to go into.

Formula 1 2022 - Italian Grand Prix

from Imgflip Meme Generator

I actually have very little to add beyond that, although I do believe Christian Horner's theory that the reason for the improvement was Ferrari turning their engines up, especially when Sam Bird on BBC radio commentary said that they'd done something similar when he'd driven for them at Monza, because Monza matters. 

That desire to win might explain some of Ferrari's choices last weekend. I can't really blame them for their choices - because given their historical pitstop issues, would you trust it to go smoothly? If that safety car had stayed out even one lap longer, we'd be in a completely different position and everyone would be talking about how brave and brilliant the Ferrari strategy team were. I'd rather them make those sorts of decisions than just be passive, so I'm not going to complain when they don't quite come off.

Belgian Grand Prix and Dutch Grand Prix

Belgian Grand Prix 

Well at least it was better than last year's race. 

I say this, mind you, not having been able to watch any of it. My mother, who hates F1, mysteriously managed to have family over for the entire race duration. This may have been for the best. 

There was the good (ish) news - Max Verstappen was starting from the back. Unfortunately, so were Leclerc, Ocon, Norris, Zhou, Mick Schumacher and Tsunoda, so there was every chance that Verstappen wouldn't start last. 

And then ...

P9 in Lap 1 then tear off in the brakes that causes front right brake overheating, have to stop to take off the tear off off the brakes, come back to P5, took a 5 seconds penalty for being too quick in pit lane because of a burnt sensor caused by the first issue. Beautiful day! pic.twitter.com/8TbcsiqzEt

— Charles Leclerc (@Charles_Leclerc) August 28, 2022

Which makes Sainz jnr not being able to hold off Verstappen seem like merely a not-good day instead.  

I have added an extra dab in "FIA can't save you now" because yes, Leclerc sped in the pitlane but there was a good excuse this time. 

I am filing "tear off in the brakes" under "actual spanner in the works". 

I am also putting a dab in "Leclerc is making that noise, let's not do that again" for that tweet. That is an unhealthy level of irony in one so young. 

I can see why they have the Belgian and Dutch Grand Prixs back to back, it's a rare outbreak of reasonableness in F1. 

Dutch Grand Prix 

Plus points from the Belgian Grand Prix: 

1 - A Ferrari on the podium 

2 - For once, it is not Ferrari's strategy being mocked. 

3 - .... Ummm, yeah. 

3 - 1 fewer than the number of tyres Carlos Sainz jnr needed. Seriously, if you call a driver into the pits, how hard is it to be ready?! With the right number of tyres. 

4 - I have no idea how many penalties for unsafe releases and/or pitstop speeding Ferrari have had this year but I have a horrible feeling it is 4.  

I just want the team to be competent. I've given up on good - competent is what I want. No driver(s), however good, can mount a challenge for the driver's title without a competent team, and there's no chance of the constructor's title without it either.

X Marks The Spot - A Ranking of the X-Men films

And now the last in this wave of X-Men-related posts - a ranking of the X-Men films. 

First, a caveat, I still haven't seen Logan. When it was released, L banned me because he was more than slight (and justifiably) concerned that I would cry so hard I would desiccate (full story here - https://fulltimesportsfan.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/logan-which-im-banned-from-watching/). Unfortunately, due to content and language, when it's shown on TV it tends to be after 9 pm, which is when Mum calls so I haven't had the chance to watch it since. One of these days I will set aside an afternoon to watch it, but I haven't managed that yet. 

With that understood, a countdown from 9 to 1 below.

9: X-Men: The Last Stand (or X-Men 3 as everyone calls it). To quote T, it was made by the despair squid, it's the only explanation. In between at least three moments where the audience goes "but character X would never do that", a character who looks like Maggot but has Marrow's powers and randomly killing off characters at the same time as pulling the second stupidest incident of Marvel-Dead in Marvel film history ... it's not good. 

8: X-Men: Dark Phoenix - Terrible dialogue for everyone. Too much action, not enough character. Randomly making Emma Frost an alien. None of these are factors in its favour. 

Those are the only two films I probably would actually not recommend. The rest all have at least a few plus points. 

7: X-Men: Apocalypse - Apocalypse the Eternal should not feel like an afterthought in his own film, and it felt like half the film was missing. That being said, it contains the Plane Scene of Much Ow! and the look of Peter's face when he realises, this time he just wasn't fast enough. 

6: X-Men Origins: Wolverine - It leans too hard into making Wolverine a generic action hero. Hugh Jackman, lovely, marvellous, fantastic Hugh Jackman, cannot do dramatic "nooooos". On the other hand, Danny Huston gives good slithery evil as Stryker, I get to have flying exploding playing cards on my cinema screen, and for all he looks nothing like Sabretooth, Liev Schreiber gets him right. There's also the excellent pre-credits scene which would probably have been better received if Watchmen hadn't done the same thing better at around the same time. 

Everything placed 5 or higher, I actively enjoy and recommend. 

5: The Wolverine or Wolverine in Japan. The idiotic real name is probably the worst thing about it. Other than that, what's not to love. It's Wolverine with a teenage girl sidekick, well done fight scenes and a film that gets Wolverine. 

4: X-Men: Days of Future Past I am strongly tempted to put this second, and basically 4, 3 and 2 are all equally good, or near as damn it equally good. This has some excellent character bits, the most gloriously ridiculously brilliant action setpiece with the RFK stadium (seriously, you could hear the Guardian film reviewer giggling about it in his written review) and some excellent Mystique bits. 

Why is it lowest of the top 4? They kill a certain character off, and unfortunately, when the comic did it, I swore never to forgive them and so I'm not going to forgive the film for it either. 

3: X2 - X-Men United - Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler (and I don't care that it was a deleted scene, Nightcrawler and Mystique). Brian Cox giving excellent slithery evil as Stryker. *That* moment where Magneto does the thing because he actually believes he's right and what happens in this may have made him even more "ends justify the means". The end scene! 

The only draw back, matters Phoenix Force seemed a little rushed. 

2: X-Men: First Class - as the writers and producers admitted, they didn't have the money for big action scenes so they did character stuff instead. So much glorious character stuff. Banshee!!! Hank!!! Presumably teenage/early adult characters actually acting like it. The fact that I wanted to shake sense into both of the lead characters exactly when the film wanted me to. 

Best of all, the parts of it that make up "Mystique Origins (part 1)" (Mystique Origins (part 2) is the best bits of Days of Future Past). 

1: X-Men - So part of it was that this was at the height of my comic book times, and seeing the Marvel logo on the big screen back when getting to a cinema was a major process. 

The other part of it is that I love it so much. 

It's not perfect, Storm's dialogue needs a rewrite, but everything else - the opening conversation between Professor Xavier and Magneto, the introduction to Wolverine, that Wolverine, while pretending to be grumbly and grouchy immediately tries to protect Rogue, yet more teenagers actually behaving like teenagers, the sheer gribbliness of everything to do with Senator Kelly, both his politics and his fate. Rogue and Wolverine at the end of the end fight scene. 

I love it the absolute most out of all of the films.

4DX is a completely nonsense cinema gimmick

I want to start by acknowledging that I am everything that's wrong with modern cinemagoers.  Give me excitement, give me escapism, give me explosions. 

Part of this moral failing includes an enjoyment of silly cinema gimmicks. Give me 3D nonsense or IMAX and I will at least try it. I am the audience William Castle aimed for. 

Of the nonsense cinema versions, I like IMAX best because the films normally look good despite the technology. As one of my eyes is stronger than the other I get a slight green shift with most 3D films and I can normally tell when a film's been converted to 3D rather than made for it because the background goes all diffuse. 

So when I see the adverts for 4DX, I am tempted. I know it won't be as good as advertised, I suspect it won't even be good, but I just have to give it a go. 

But, in case it's terrible, I don't want to ruin a good film by distracting myself with the 4DX nonsense. Then Dark Phoenix came out in the cinema and I thought, "that's it, that is my solution, because it is going to be terrible so it will not be ruined." 

And I was right, Dark Phoenix turned out to be a good choice to try out 4DX (my review of Dark Phoenix is here). 

4DX wasn't as distracting as it could have been - the biggest physical jolt was in the demo at the start, and any other movement was roughly equivalent to an unruly seven year old hitting your chair about three hours into a flight. 

The smells were done with the usual sugar powder so there was no smell at all. It's noticeable that the 4DX trailer used coffee, toast and orange juice. Because they're strong smells. Most films do not include strong smells (and those that do are mostly smells that no-one would want to smell). 

I do not regret watching a film in 4DX just once, but it was a damp squib, especially for the price. It strikes me as the sort of thing I might do every 5 years for giggles, not because it's good.