Then why use the analogy in a post about Livett's low tackle count in a game?

You confuse yourself sometimes.

The point was to discredit the stat angling HL being poor and/or lazy in defence...

And the Paul Cullen story is a good one not to miss out on.

My missus thinks she's the Jonathan Davies of cleaning the kitchen. Knows where all the muck and grime is and points at it barking orders.

Whilst you might think its a good story for us all not to miss out on, I've got to agree with Deckchair it's completely irrelevant, as unfortunately for us and Harvey Livett he isn't a Jonathan Davies.

And I still didn't say he was.
The point is to raise the issue that a low tackle count stat doesn't tell the truth.
The original post is trying to imply Livett had the lowest tackle count and therfore poor.

If players are going to continually run at him, he'll end up doing 50/60 tackles in a game...if there gonna keep running down the other side...he's gonna do 11.

Forget it. I retract it and wave the white flag.

There's no need to retract anything I'm not even saying that Livett is a bad player or that stat's tell the full story of anyone's performance for example we all know say in the case of our wingers last year that if they had more ball they would have had more chances to score (one of their primary functions).

BUT using the Davies comparative was a bit misguided to try and prove your point IMO

Phone up the RFU and see if they'll offer her a slightly better contract than the one you've got her on. Worked with Davies. You could free up some cap space and sign a younger up-and-coming star?

One piece of advice though - don't employ Steve Anderson to do your recruitment for you.

When all is said and done, it’s absolutely mind boggling that Livett isn’t seen as a much better option than Luther Burrell.

Absolute waste of a shirt, price needs to bite the bullet and decide this experiment isn’t working.