Who need stats to tell them that a guy who has represented queensland and australia 13 times each and won the clive churchill medal is better than danny houghton?

stats are for s

Ah the reputation factor. Robbie Fowler played for England. Does that make him currently better than Marcus Bent? (and i'm not arguing that Houghton is better than Berro)

I agree with the general point, but in this case it's not about trust as such - it's about the fact that none of us has any idea about how these stats are collected or even defined. With such a complete absence of information they are pretty much random numbers.

Technically all that proves is that he [ihas been[/i a far better player than Houghton.

I'm sure if robbie fowler were about 10 years younger and still playing at the top level he'd be better than marcus bent.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. There more interesting to debate that having no stats at all. Which is why I used the phrase 'shed light' rather than 'prove'.

and the point you missed...

I totally agree he is a better player hands down, however he has not produced that form for Hull FC, barring a few glimpses of his brilliance.
For the record I believe he played more Representative rugby at Centre as opposed to Hooker, and I when I have seen him play centre for FC (Not often) I can understand why, he was very good.

See what i started now. I should have kept my interesting statistical link to myself.

I tend to agree. I was just indulging my fondness for pedantry.

I agree too. I just found the statistical information interesting.