Vickery

Quote: tvoc "Recognising the players and accurately relating the position they are attacking and/or defending in may be useful. Why not establish that first before trying to discuss the action.

So in the Hull game where in your opinion Vickery was the better of the two wingers - what were their metres again - sorry but I didn't quite catch it?

How very balanced of you to point out Vickery also made a marker tackle while ignoring that Hall made almost three times the total metres (177 to 66 - does Opta include the metres made in reverse?) Hall made twice the number of carries (20 to 10), Hall made 1 offload to Vickery's 0, Hall made one attacking kick to Vickery's 0, Hall made 2 runs from dummy half to Vickery's 0, Hall made 2 tackle busts to Vickery's 1 and they both made one error ........ that is if you trust what Opta claim.

Again you use selective stats that suits your agenda - where's the balance? Opta are no friends of mine but come in useful to counter your selective use of them. The Opta stats mean very little to me in regards to assessing player performance - the actual incidents that occur in games is what I try to focus on rather than someone else's subjective opinions which have often been proven to be inaccurate when tested. Your apparent willingness to accept their validity is not shared universally.

Leeds V St Helens:

The stats of Hall and Vickery show very little to choose between them in all honesty. Your interpretation is questionable without reference to actual incidents to support the numbers. This better average gain you speak of could be the result of more cheap metres on kick returns - I don't know and I suspect strongly that you don't either. Am I wrong to think that because if you think I am I'm quite happy to have a look for you. Another interpretation could be that fewer carries

Is this your entry for the Pedant of the Year award? I guess you will have a difficult decision choosing which of your posts to enter this year!

You talk of using selective stats to suit an agenda and you use the word "balance" ...not a word I readily associate with your postings.

I may well have an agenda and if so, it should be plain for all to see that it is to argue against comments that IMO are too negative, too insulting, too OTT or too wrong to let go. This doesn't mean I am blind to the mistakes, errors, loss of form and human failings that occur in our team from time to time and therefore I have never been against general critical comment and discussion. None of this proves any of us are always correct as in the end is a just question of opinion. As someone once said 'there is what you say, and what I say and then there is the truth'

In this case my comments clearly stated that we should put Vickery's errors in perspective and I pointed out Hall's lack of form (at the time) not to have a go at him (as I rate him highly) but as a "balance".

Regarding the use of selective stats well of course I will use the amunition that best supports my argument and so do you and most others. eg When you have been regulary and selectively deriding Vickery you never mentioned Hall's poor form to put in some "balance" did you....."sorry I didn't quite catch it".

Talking of agendas yours too is plain for all to see. Whatever the topic you choose to take a position that is both negative and anti Leeds. Your crusade against the CEO, McDermott, Lowes is well known despite their success and you have on-going issues against JJB, Burrow, the away strip etc and now Vickery, Moon, the medical staff etc etc.

You never seem to show balance or give the benefit of the doubt to those on your keyboard hit list and the only thing you prove when using VT as evidence is that you have more time than anyone else to trawl through repeat playbacks to find some "selective moment" that you know no-one else has the time or inclination to challenge.

What I would like to know is what brought about this negative agenda againstLeeds.