Again you completely miss the point of a "team" game, and an individual. Furthermore you miss the point of stats in relation to actual game play.

It really isn't that difficult.

I made no comment. So cannot have missed "the point".

However what really is difficult is to trust your point of view.

If the purpose of quoting stats, some of which are not relevant to the hooker, was not to try and push your usual agenda, then what else were they for?

Presumably to provide people with some material to prove/disprove their own agendas?

And do you believe that stats tell you more than seeing the game fully?

Where did I say they did?

They provide a guide for those who maybe weren't at this particular game, but have opinions based on players previous performances

I never said you did. I asked the question. So your saying no, that's fair enough.

Those stats pretty much reflect the amount of game time each player had on the pitch. It doesn't bode as a comparison tool though.

It doesn't bode as a comparison tool full stop. They both played completely different styles of game. One had a massive effect of changing the game and striking a momentum for the team, and the other wasn't working from a team perspective.

You're preaching to the choir! I watched the same game as you.

I was merely saying that if you didn't watch the game and was looking at the stats, not to read too much into them as they only tell half a story.

I see that Weyman has been charged with making dangerous contatct with JP's legs as early as the 6th minute.
I'm surprised that there has been no mention of that on here from those who went.
Particularly given the injuries JP has suffered to his knees/legs in the past.

I know, I wasn't ramming the message home to you. I could see from your post you were singing the same tune

I've always been in the start with a more traditional hooker camp.

If we were like a Wigan or Wire who like to get off to a fast starts and build an early lead then yes start Burrow. But we usually work our way into games and hit our better moments later on, like yesterday.

Comparing these two hookers is quite difficult. It's not like comparing 2 props or even the right centre to the left centre. It's not always what the hooker does for his own stats....but what he does and brings out of others (mainly the forwards). Also the workload taken off the others in defence.

That's exactly how I read them. It confirms what I thought and Which one I would prefer to start.

Bingo. And that was exactly the situation yesterday. Other days it might be different, but yesterday that is exactly what happened. One worked perfectly with the players around him, the other it didn't work.

Pretty hard to spot without TV replays.

I see Elima was charged. His did not look good. Very hard to determine intent from a replay, but at best it was recklessly careless.

Dunno about the Weyman one, but Elima's was certainly the sort of thing the RFL might want to take a dim view of and stamp out quickly IMO. Intent or not, it looked dangerous and the tackler needs to take responsibility for their actions. Game's tough enough etc.

One purpose of quoting the stats was in answer to another posters request for a comparison. I made no comment on the stats as both players were on the field for differing times and differing circumstances.

Of course it is true that stats don't tell the whole story but neither does the statement you made (see below) which displays you usual lack of balance.



To say the "game hinged on the on the substitution of Burrow" was to ignore the other factors. In the first half both sides were a bit rusty which was to be expected. Their pack were the equal of ours with some good defence and our discipline was not too good. In the 2nd half their pack faded away with nowhere near the same effort as the first half. Also perhaps the coach gave a good half time team talk and adjusted the game plan.

I am pleased Aiton did some good work in his short time on the field but he had the benefit of facing a pack that was running out of steam, something that Burrow also benefitted from when he returned. The 2nd half also saw our backs making clean breaks which turned the game in our favour including Burrow with his try assist.

What the stats record but you didn't is that Burrow made a clean break and try assist and 4 tackle busts which indicate he wasn't "very poor" for all the game.

I make no apologies for my usual agenda, which is to challenge depressingly negative comments whenever possible. You being a serial offender are therefore fair game.

As you mention "usual agenda" I noticed on the Kirke thread you called our coach a "knobjockey" on three separate posts. Why do you have to resort to insulting someone behind their back? If you ever where to summon up the courage to repeat your poor taste remark to McDermott's face I would appreciate some notice as I would make a special effort to be there.

PMSL. You know all this from intermittent radio reports, and the stats

. You didn't see the game, but you seriously feel qualified to post that. Of course all absolute nonsense as usual, but a view formed from combining bits of others views and media reports. Well the bits that suit.

Let me say this again even slower for you. The game hinged on taking Burrow off and bringing Aiton on. Aiton played to a style that suited his team mates better, and allowed the backs especially to flourish, by allowing them to take the dummy half role. At the same time he stifled Hull KR in the middle, by defending there. Burrow played his usual game, which whilst the KR pack were fit and healthy, was predictable, and did not allow his team mates to flourish. His passes were poor and slow, and resulted in errors because of this. If other players tried to jump in to dummy half they were ushered away. Compare and contrast to what we did successfully when Burrow went off. I am 100% sure those that went would back up this view fully! as we have seen from several on here.

Aiton came on at half time, after the players had had a 15 minute break. Not when they were at most fatigued. Burrow came back later on when KR were broken as a team, heads were down, and they were really tired. It was here where his try assist, clean break, and a bust happened. Exactly when Burrow should be on.





Seriously? I mean seriously? What is it with wimp fans who feel you dare not speak to X like that, because he was a big bad rugby player? Grow up. What I say on here I would have no problem saying to someone's face. I am no shrinking violet myself, having being that big bad rugby player also.

But just to even up on this thread I praised McDermott for seeing sense when he did substitute Burrow, seeing that it was the needed move to make. You see I will critisize where needed, like the stupid decision to pick an average player with broken ribs, as opposed to a hungry player in form. Or I will praise it where he makes a game changing switch like yesterday.

Did anyone see on the Rhinos website match highlight the Rovers budgie mascot try to put Sir Kev off his conversion kick after the 1st try by banging the advertising boards just behind him at the point of kicking.

Do the RFL have a mascot code of conduct because that budgie needs sorting out.

I'm sure that's high on their list of things to do

As soon as Burrow was re-introduced after his rightful spelling, almost instantly he carved down the left hand side to set up a try.

More of the same please.

Who did you play for?

Would you seriously appraise McDermott's performance by calling him a knobjockey to his face?

I mean, he's a hard man. But I doubt he'd actually chin you for that.

But apart from that, why would you do that to anyone's face talking about their job? It's not only rude and childish, but probably using perjorative terms for homosexuality as insults isn't very clever from your keyboard, let alone to peoples' faces.

So I'm not sure about daring to say things like that to peoples' faces, it's more that you just shouldn't say them to anyone's face.

Or on a messageboard really. But at least it's vague and less directed on here.

I'd say that to your face too. Even though I'm sure you could have me in a fight.

I agree with pretty much all of your RL points on this thread, by the way. Except the ones I'm in no position to agree or disagree with having not seen the match.

I appraised McDermott's decision to pick an average player with broken ribs, as opposed to a an hungry player in form, as a knobjockey. That wasn't his performance, that was his decision I appraised.

knobjockey seemed most appropriate at the time, and whilst there are many other words I could have chosen, I am sure they would equally have being offensive.

Had someone asked me in front of McDermott's face what I thought about the decision again, I again would have used the word knobjockey. Again, I still feel it most appropriate at this time, as not viewing it purely for the purpose of homosexuality only.

Had I being asked to appraise his performance, then the wording used may well have being different. But it would have being the same regardless of a keyboard or face to face.

It's not about being big and hard, who cares. It's about being true to your word. I say what I see.





And I thank you.

mmmmmmm not sure that anyone in the game deserves that sort of language... except maybe one current player,,,there is alays an exception to the rule and has I wouldnt use it to his face...then I wouldnt use it... well not out loud anyway.

The guy is paid to make those choices, its his job and on balance its difficult to argue with his overall achievements to date.

You might not agree but thats no excuse for abusing him or his choices.