Have you ever known anybody so utterly obsessed with statistics?

You don't like statistics that disprove your points, perhaps?

Like what?

I'm not opposed to stats by any means. They just don't always tell the whole picture and can't be fully relied on.

And you could have said that, instead you had a disparaging swipe at the poster. Nice.

Personally I think Langley has plenty to offer the club and it'd be wrong for us to try and offload him.

That said, is there anyone else at the club who's been here long enough to be eligible for the £50k subsidy? Hypothetically if that £50k passed on to Sykes would he be better value (being able to cover 3-4 positions) than Langley?

No he wouldn't. Langley is equaly capable of covering 3/4 positions imo. LF/SR/PROP/HOOKER, Maybe centre at a push.

I felt sick reading that part.

At least they provide some factual basis for a discussion rather than some whimsy of an opinion plucked out of thin air. statistics can be interpreted in different ways and there can be discussion about that which is the whole purpose of such a site as this. I presented those statistics in direct response to a question from the poster as to how many games Jamie had played. Clearly if that person was asking such a question they had not done any research themselves to confirm their opinion and so to then say that Jamie cannot tackle when they did not even know how many games he played, they cannot know anything about Jamies performance. So I am sorry that I presented such awkward facts such as his tackles rate, but I also pointed to sensible constructive comments that other posters made. Interestingly in your next year starting 17 you moved Jamie from LF forwards in the pack, I cant quite remember whether 2nd row or prop, so you disagree with the brainless poster too, and yet your are defending him. Or rather taking the opportunity to have a rant at me. The topic was a repeat of one a few weeks ago in which I and a number of other posters said the same things as we said this time, so if you dont want statistics stop coming up with the same thoughtless whimsical comments.

Don't be silly, the days when Langley could play out in the backs have long gone

And I wouldn't ever want to see at hooker these days either

For me, nowadays, he looks like a hard working, hard tackling prop forward - or second row at a push

Exactly Paul.

Where have I disagreed with anybody or defended anybody about Langley and his stats? Are you seeing things, or just making them up? Still, you can't make stats up can you?

Not saying he'd be good at either. Just that at a push he could cover there. Hell, Paul Sykes is a back and his days of playing there have also long gone.