Interesting Stats.

[Rossm]

Looking at that, it shows how strong our defence was or alternatively, how poor their offence was 

The only stats I can make head or tail of is points for and points against

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Looking at that, Bears did almost everything right

Except

For each carry we went twice as far as they did. That means we exerted less energy, and they would be more fatigued.

We turned them over a lot more than they did us.

We were amazingly more efficient in the red zone, which is how we nilled them in the second half.

When we did make a break, it looks like Bears missed quite a few tackles. That would be expected. If one player in defence fails in their job, it unravels quite quickly.

We appear to have been more able to reorganise our defence after a break by them than they were when we broke through. That is down to fatigue, plyer positioning, and morale.

[DGP Wasp]

The only stats I can make head or tail of is points for and points against

That's the only one that really matters!

[Bloke in North Dorset]

What am I missing in the turnover stats?

Our turnovers lost should, by definition, equal their turnovers won and vice versa and we lost 10 turnovers but they only won 6, and they lost 20 turnovers and we only won 14.

[wasps]

What am I missing in the turnover stats?

Our turnovers lost should, by definition, equal their turnovers won and vice versa and we lost 10 turnovers but they only won 6, and they lost 20 turnovers and we only won 14.

I don't know about these stats, but sometimes a turnover lost could be a knock on... O.e. you've lost possession to the other team

However, I think a turnover won typically involves someone actually winning the ball/penalty at a breakdown

[Bloke in North Dorset]

What am I missing in the turnover stats?

Our turnovers lost should, by definition, equal their turnovers won and vice versa and we lost 10 turnovers but they only won 6, and they lost 20 turnovers and we only won 14.

I don't know about these stats, but sometimes a turnover lost could be a knock on... O.e. you've lost possession to the other team

However, I think a turnover won typically involves someone actually winning the ball/penalty at a breakdown

Sounds like a good explanation.

[InBetweenWasp]

Bristol's execution was poor.  They had plenty of possession and opportunities but just couldn't convert.

Bit like Chiefs v Leicester.  Chiefs had loads of chances and constantly took a drive to the line, or one-out rugby with forwards trying to get over the line but failed.  They weren't creating the gaps to exploit.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Another interesting stat:

Wow collision dominance in Wasps vs Bristol is interesting…

🐝- 9%
🐻- 17%

It didn’t feel like the Bears were dominant…

https://twitter.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1442419430776967169?s=21

[13thWarrior]

For each carry we went twice as far as they did.

Not how I figure it (perhaps you're doing a different calculation?):
Wasps metres per carry = 355/79 = 4.49
Bristol metres per carry = 485/104 = 4.66

The obvious big difference is in "Positive outcomes" which the commentary team had a bit of fun with as it somewhat hard to define. But we won turnovers and repelled mauls at key moments, i.e., defending our line, whereas they didn't and we typically got over the line when attacking. That is quite hard to capture in the statistics.

Also, we had a much higher % of possession kicked - may have allowed us to avoid being turned over in danger areas, although the territory stats aren't hugely different.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Not how I figure it (perhaps you're doing a different calculation?):
Wasps metres per carry = 355/79 = 4.49
Bristol metres per carry = 485/104 = 4.66

Whoops. Brain went walkabout 

[Shugs]

Thought Bristol were very poor. I was relieved Lam picked Uren over Randall and I think Sheedy is overrated. In addition I think they're short term fix of loaning Malins and Earl has backfired. Suddenly you've got two big holes to plug. When you add in a poor from row, an 8 who hasn't been great for a few years and a missing Radrandra and you get thumped!

[DGP Wasp]

In addition I think they're short term fix of loaning Malins and Earl has backfired. Suddenly you've got two big holes to plug.

Totally agree, and I'm so glad Wasps didn't touch any of them.  For Bristol to take 2 of them for a season did strike me as risky, not to mention morally wrong in so far as it helped the cheats out of their predicament.  Maybe Bristol had hoped that the one year loan may have turned into something permanent once Sarries faced up to the reality of working within the salary cap, but now have to face up to their own reality that Sarries are back and carrying on as if the whole shameful saga never happened.

Lozowski is back with them after a year in Montpellier, but who else left Sarries on loan to another English club last season?  Isiekwe at Saints.  Spencer to Bath was permanent.  Have I forgotten anyone?

[jamestaylor002]

In addition I think they're short term fix of loaning Malins and Earl has backfired. Suddenly you've got two big holes to plug.

Totally agree, and I'm so glad Wasps didn't touch any of them.  For Bristol to take 2 of them for a season did strike me as risky, not to mention morally wrong in so far as it helped the cheats out of their predicament.  Maybe Bristol had hoped that the one year loan may have turned into something permanent once Sarries faced up to the reality of working within the salary cap, but now have to face up to their own reality that Sarries are back and carrying on as if the whole shameful saga never happened.

Lozowski is back with them after a year in Montpellier, but who else left Sarries on loan to another English club last season?  Isiekwe at Saints.  Spencer to Bath was permanent.  Have I forgotten anyone?

Jack Singleton stayed at Gloucester I believe?