Kirke (in the Regular Rounds) averaged 6.92 carries for an average of 7.32 metres gain.

His lowest metres per carry (4.56 and 5.10) came in games when he made more carries than his norm (9 and 10) while his best metres per carry (13.5, 10.67 and 10.25) all came in games when he made much fewer (2, 3 and 4) and at least one of those was down to the prodigious Pat Richards drop-outs at the Etihad Stadium.

Last Saturday's game at Warrington (4.73 metres averaged from 11 carries) would appear to fall into that same pattern

A Kirke/Opta observation from the recent Wigan game can be found here: viewtopic.php?tsmp=1379258723&f=17&t=558195&p=17563411&sid=24c6b72c8d24993b689d9f22ee1e720d#p17563411

Kirke (in the Regular Rounds) averaged 6.92 carries for an average of 7.32 metres gain.

His lowest metres per carry (4.56 and 5.10) came in games when he made more carries than his norm (9 and 10) while his best metres per carry (13.5, 10.67 and 10.25) all came in games when he made much fewer (2, 3 and 4) and at least one of those was down to the prodigious Pat Richards drop-outs at the Etihad Stadium.

Last Saturday's game at Warrington (4.73 metres averaged from 11 carries) would appear to fall into that same pattern

A Kirke/Opta observation from the recent Wigan game can be found here: viewtopic.php?tsmp=1379258723&f=17&t=558195&p=17563411&sid=24c6b72c8d24993b689d9f22ee1e720d#p17563411

Then are you yourself defending without also knowing the length of a stint?

Now that you hopefully do know (and to the second thanks to some helpful contributor - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=558195&tsmp=1379426559&start=55) how long Kirke played at Wigan are you standing by your judgement of his effort in that game - which included the novel 'you can't make tackles on defence and be expected to carry the ball in on attack when you're a prop' , it's just that you haven't returned to the thread in question almost as if you are trying to avoid it - and I know that won't be the case here.

Then are you yourself defending without also knowing the length of a stint?

Now that you hopefully do know (and to the second thanks to some helpful contributor - viewtopic.php?f=17&t=558195&tsmp=1379426559&start=55) how long Kirke played at Wigan are you standing by your judgement of his effort in that game - which included the novel 'you can't make tackles on defence and be expected to carry the ball in on attack when you're a prop' , it's just that you haven't returned to the thread in question almost as if you are trying to avoid it - and I know that won't be the case here.

Those rare occasions at least being an improvement on what Opta provide without subscription then. If the stats only provide limited information (which I agree they do) why do you use them and insist on calling them 'facts' ?



The vast majority of my records have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a minutes played stat, or carries, or tackles, or busts or any other category Opta choose to publish online. I record these only as a comparatively recent addition (since 200icon_cool.gif but only because they are available.

As long as they're listed week by week I'll record them but if they weren't there I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.

My initial interest was to highlight the frequent errors such as mistaking Ian Kirke for Rob Burrow in relation to a 40:20, when they miscount the numbers of penalties awarded/conceded or when they award more try assists than there were tries scored or when they credit Danny Buderus with kicking a conversion. (Spookily Buderus actually did this a couple of weeks ago only it was back in his native Newcastle - probably not a lot of people spotted that.) Then there are the genuine queries on consistencies, asking why a pass wasn't an assist when almost every kick (no matter how many fumbles) that results in a try still is - to do this someone has to try to marry the stat with the action and there are not many around.



Numbers or judgement?

Kirke played a stint at Wigan that began when he replaced Leuluai at 18 minutes and 57 seconds (according to the Sky in-game clock), he ended the first half still on and started the second half the same until being replaced by Singleton at 53 minutes and 10 seconds. A stint of 34 minutes and 13 seconds - Fact - he replaced a prop - Fact - he made 3 carries in that game - Fact.

Your avoidance of replying to my post on that thread will have been noted : viewtopic.php?f=17&t=558195&tsmp=1379426559&start=55

On page 2 you asked:



tad rhino replied:



And tad was right it was at least 15 - in reality we should all now be able to accept it was many more than this

and your next offering was



But no-one had said it was 15 - only that it was at least 15 which it clearly was and a figure that you yourself felt had been exceeded. Hardly a solid foundation for suggesting a fellow poster is stupid now is it? (Especially one that has qualified for this forum's prediction comp play-off this season and also finished the table prediction comp a creditable 16th to your joint 40th : viewtopic.php?f=17&t=542167&tsmp=1378768527&start=82



Was this you being self-deprecating ? Unlikely. You built a case to defend Kirke's workrate on an entirely erroneous figure of 15 minutes even though you yourself thought he was on longer than that and now that the truth of the minutes is out there - the silence is deafening.

You asked the question but seemingly weren't all that if at all interested in the answer especially when it rode a coach and horses through your flaky case in Kirke's defence.

Those rare occasions at least being an improvement on what Opta provide without subscription then. If the stats only provide limited information (which I agree they do) why do you use them and insist on calling them 'facts' ?



The vast majority of my records have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a minutes played stat, or carries, or tackles, or busts or any other category Opta choose to publish online. I record these only as a comparatively recent addition (since 200icon_cool.gif but only because they are available.

As long as they're listed week by week I'll record them but if they weren't there I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.

My initial interest was to highlight the frequent errors such as mistaking Ian Kirke for Rob Burrow in relation to a 40:20, when they miscount the numbers of penalties awarded/conceded or when they award more try assists than there were tries scored or when they credit Danny Buderus with kicking a conversion. (Spookily Buderus actually did this a couple of weeks ago only it was back in his native Newcastle - probably not a lot of people spotted that.) Then there are the genuine queries on consistencies, asking why a pass wasn't an assist when almost every kick (no matter how many fumbles) that results in a try still is - to do this someone has to try to marry the stat with the action and there are not many around.



Numbers or judgement?

Kirke played a stint at Wigan that began when he replaced Leuluai at 18 minutes and 57 seconds (according to the Sky in-game clock), he ended the first half still on and started the second half the same until being replaced by Singleton at 53 minutes and 10 seconds. A stint of 34 minutes and 13 seconds - Fact - he replaced a prop - Fact - he made 3 carries in that game - Fact.

Your avoidance of replying to my post on that thread will have been noted : viewtopic.php?f=17&t=558195&tsmp=1379426559&start=55

On page 2 you asked:



tad rhino replied:



And tad was right it was at least 15 - in reality we should all now be able to accept it was many more than this

and your next offering was



But no-one had said it was 15 - only that it was at least 15 which it clearly was and a figure that you yourself felt had been exceeded. Hardly a solid foundation for suggesting a fellow poster is stupid now is it? (Especially one that has qualified for this forum's prediction comp play-off this season and also finished the table prediction comp a creditable 16th to your joint 40th : viewtopic.php?f=17&t=542167&tsmp=1378768527&start=82



Was this you being self-deprecating ? Unlikely. You built a case to defend Kirke's workrate on an entirely erroneous figure of 15 minutes even though you yourself thought he was on longer than that and now that the truth of the minutes is out there - the silence is deafening.

You asked the question but seemingly weren't all that if at all interested in the answer especially when it rode a coach and horses through your flaky case in Kirke's defence.