Player: Metres - Carries (MT/Carry) - Tackles - Misses (Efficiency %) - Errors - Penalties

Leeds: 1471 - 196 (7.51) - 311 - 19 (94%) - 16 - =red:1ihpou829:1ihpou82 *10
Wakefield: 1299 - 178 (7.30) - 253 - ? (??%) - 8 - =red:1ihpou825:1ihpou82 **4

Webb: 79 - 21 (3.76) - 6 - 1 (86%) - 0 - 1

Donald: 45 - 7 (6.43) - 4 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 0
Smith: 91 - 10 (9.10) - 20 - 2 (91%) - 2 - 0
Senior: 179 - 17 (10.53 ) - 11 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 2
Hall: 149 - 11 (13.55 ) - 5 - 1 (83%) - 2 - 0

McGuire: 85 - 16 (5.31) - 9 - 2 (82%) - 3 - 0
Burrow: 73 - 12 (6.08 ) - 18 - 2 (90%) - 0 - 0

Leuluai: 63 - 6 (10.50 ) - 21 - 1 (95%) - 0 - 0
Buderus: 52 - 9 (5.78 ) - 18 - 3 (86%) - 0 - 0
Jones-Buchanan: 72 - 10 (7.20) - 25 - 1 (96%) - 0 - 3
Ablett: 68 - 8 (8.50) - 34 - 2 (94%) - 2 - =red:1ihpou821:1ihpou82 *** 2
Lauitiiti: 103 - 11 (9.36) - 14 - 0 (100%) - 0 - 0
Sinfield: 88 - 15 (5.87) - 33 - 1 (97%) - 1 - 0

Diskin: 42 - 8 (5.25) - 19 - 0 (100%) - 2 - 0
Worrall: 15 - 4 (3.75) - 15 - 1 (94%) - 0 - 0
Peacock: 159 - 17 (9.35) - 34 - 0 (100%) - 1 - 1
Burgess: 108 - 14 (7.71) - 25 - 2 (93%) - 0 - 1

The good news is I have no problem with the awarding of Try Assists this week:

1 - Ablett (Jones-Buchanan try)
1 - Hall (Burrow try)
1 - Burrow (Lauitiiti try)
1 - Senior (Burrow try)
1 - McGuire (Donald try)

The not so good news:

Neither Leeds nor Wakefield had a player sent to the sin-bin according to the Opta stats.
* - Leeds conceded one more penalty than Opta are reporting.
*** - Likewise Ablett is only showing 1 penalty when he clearly was spoken to twice having been marched ten for dissent.
** - Wakefield conceded one fewer penalty than Opta are reporting.
How did Lauitiiti not knock on (error) when he should have scored.

I've adjusted the figures starred and in red to reflect the actual totals

Previous week's stats:

[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=418838:1ihpou82Hull V Leeds[/url:1ihpou82
[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=417161&highlight=:1ihpou82Leeds V Bradford[/url:1ihpou82
[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=416269&highlight=:1ihpou82Harlequins V Leeds[/url:1ihpou82
[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=415140&highlight=:1ihpou82Leeds V Huddersfield[/url:1ihpou82
[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=414229&highlight=:1ihpou82Les Catalans V Leeds[/url

Errors and penalties show why despite a clear advantage in metres the game was as close as it was.

Nice bench figures for Peacock.

With regard to Ablett, when he was marched back had Wakey already been awarded the penalty. I can't fully recollect due to senility/screaming kids/moaning wife interfering with my enjoyment of the game.

Yeh it was after drew's impression of ronaldo!!

The penalty for obstruction was against Peacock, apparently for lifting his leg, the penalty for dissent and 10 metres conceded that followed was against Ablett for laughing, again apparently.

These are sometimes missed in the stats (as could be the case here) but they are most definitely double penalties.

The one in the first half was a single penalty though as the original offence that Ablett objected to was the awarding of a knock on against Smith.

Well I did not know that, I just thought that it was 'an extension' of the originally penalty.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my last comment - they are most definitely double penalties according to my unofficial rule book that I carry around in my head.

Peter Smith of the YEP agreed with me that the count was 10 - 4 to Wakefield, although I'm not sure if his endorsement is altogether a good thing or not but I'll pretend it is here.

Leeds have conceded a few additional penalties for dissent and this is the first time I can recall it queering up the count.

I have to say I didn't think the 10m for dissent counted as another penalty. In my world the only penalty for dissent was the first half one after the Smith steal/knock-on, where what I think would have been a scrum to Wakey became a penalty.

I might be completely wrong though, as I've never actually read any ruling on it, I just assumed, which makes an ass of u and me.

In that case I'm the U, cos that would have been my interpretation as well.

My interpretation comes from the referee blowing his whistle to award the original penalty and raising his arm, then blowing his whistle again and raising his arm again 10 metres upfield/downfield (depending which way your heading) after marching the team for dissent.

As I said above I've consistently used that method to count penalties without it managing to queer the counts before.

Hopefully they'll be a referee along soon to sort this out..... as long as it's not Ganson.

A bit like refereeing I'm not fussed which way it's done as long as it's consistent. I was, in the first place, proposing a reason for the difference in your count versus opta. From your further submissions it looks like the opta statisticians may have the same consistency issues as referees.

And not just in the area concerning the counting of penalties either. Whether the Leeds against count is one down on the actual as I saw it or not how do you explain Wakefield's count against being one up? I don't think I can, although a tally mark in the wrong column works.

It really shouldn't be difficult to count penalties or spot [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/statistics_player.php?hs1=2009&hp1=1142&hs2=2009&hp2=479&stat=tries&season=2009two players being sent to the sin-bin[/url somehow missed by Opta this week.

i'm sure some poor sod in a darkened room looking at videos all day of sports that he may or may not be interested in with a clipboard and a pen, having been set impossible targets for his output may not agree with you there.*

* That's how I imagine the opta data is derived at. ( more akin to a battey hen type production than the idealists seeing happy free range hens wandering the pastures of an idyllic traditional farm in the North Riding)

I don't have the foggiest which is the correct measure, but if you have always counted it that way and your counts have not been wrong against the official stats before then I inclined to your interpretation.

JP's tackling stats are awesome.

F-in legend.

Impressive work rate from Leuluai again I see - 6 carries. The lowest of any of the four "props" on duty.

The sort of stat that would get players like Bailey lynched on here...

Yeah the Bailey bashers would have picked up on that.

Kylies defensive work was manful.

And the type of game Leeds got dragged into can explain that stat. Shows the little ball we had, and the catch up style of rugby we had to play meant a lot of ball through the hands.

I might have taken that point as a partial excuse, were it not for the fact that JP, Burgess and JJB all managed to produce more carries, in the case of the first two significantly more.

You'd expect those to be down too if the props were being under used.

So was Sinfield's

Seniors effort is also noteworthy