Berro

Quote: trys'r'us "The debate around them gives absolutely no context. What gives context is knowing exactly what they are measuring, how they are collected and how they are analysed, and that still doesn't help a great deal as, without wanting to repeat what Kosh said, there are so many variables in place that it is impossible to measure anything accurately and for it to have a consistent meaning.

I did try to get that sort of debate started with my first couple of posts on this thread, but you didn't seem interested in getting involved. And then berrigans bitch decided to add nothing of worth.

I'll just take the two examples you mention there, stripping the first of any sort of statistical value and providing a little context for the second, but still nothing like the full pitcure.

Berrigan might have only one assist. He might not have. What's an assist, in the context of these statistics? Does Berrigan getting out of dummy half, drawing a marker and the A defender, before putting O'Meley through the gap created count as an assist? That was 30m out from the line and resulted in O'Meley giving a pass to Horne to score under the sticks. Is an assist only the final pass/kick in a try scoring move? Is Berrigan giving a pass from dummy half, 5m out, to Yeaman running an unders line an assist, therefore? Would make a 95m break from your own line, only to be tackled inches short, count as an assist if the dummy half at the next play dived straight over? Would getting a quick play on the halfway line, which lead to a break in the 'black hole' and subsequently a try count as an assist? Would fumbling the ball (backwards? Who knows, it may be a poor decision by the referee) that was picked up by a team mate and then grounded count as an assist?

I think you can see where I'm going with that.

On Houghton making more tackles, I'll leave out what defines a tackle for now (a key piece of information, but it would only result in a huge amount of writing that would probably be ignored anyway). What I will say is that Houghton is targeted in defence by every team. Every chance the opposition gets, they run at him. At him, not round him. Why? Because he doesn't have the ability to tackle high, round the ball, and put in the work in the collision to work the carrier onto their back for a slow play. He tackles low, round the ankles and as a result, usually ends up at the bottom of the ruck, allowing a quick play often against an unset line and unset markers. This is also one of the main reasons he makes so many marker tackles because, as happens with Radford as well, teams target their tackles to scoot against. That means the next play is kept tight around the ruck and they make their tackles when they are running back to meet the rest of the line which hasn't had chance to move up due to the quick play and the scoot.

As I said before, I don't give a sh[sizei[/sizet who the players are, I'm purely debating the worth of the statistics. And as for fearing statistics (and I really don't like bringing up external, unprovable [on here, at least] factors that sound arrogant, more than anything), I've spent a hell of a lot of time working with statistics. They formed a large part of my degree, particularly quantitative methods modules, and the collection, analysis and interpretation of statistics at a (fairly) complex level forms a large part of my job. I'm not against the use of statistics, it's vital in many, many areas and is of huge importance to our civilisation, but I am very much against shoddy statistics being presented as evidence and given credence. There's not much I dislike more.'"

All that and you simply could have put 'i wont believe any stats that disprove my theory and will aim to discredit the stat at all costs but will try to prove my credibility by mentioning education and employment'