Good for you.

It's no coincidence that an upturn in form came without Kearney in the side. Poor decisions and missed tackles are Kearney's all over.

You can, of course, back up that statement with actual fact?

Or is just like everything else you type? ie your opinion that you've confused with fact?

It is just my opinion.
But I actually pay attention at games and notice these things happening.

Heath, Rangi Chase, Iosia Soliola, Michael Witt, Ben Galea, Scot Dureau and Michael Monaghan have all missed significantly more tackles than BK. All would walk into most teams. But that really isn't the point, merely that you are incorrect from a statistical point of view in terms of it isolating abilities of players.

From the standpoint of him being a fine player to the naked eye, the axe you continually grind is both irrational and without foundation. As for poor decision making. No. His speed of thought is light years ahead of the rest of the side.

OK, Statto.

You should of gone to specsavers !!!

A superbly considered, reasoned and well thought out response. I'd expect nothing less.

My mince pies are perfectly fine. Ta.

Dont get me wrong Royston is doing a great job at FB and should only be replaced in that position by BK if Shad is moved to centres and whitehead back in the front row, with the team now getting some form, IMO BK has the quality to inject more confidence into the team just because of his quality

Stats for selected Bulls players and the others GB listed.

Name------tackles; missed; % missed

Kearney-------73; 26; 35%
L'estrange-----342; 32; 9%
Ah Van--------153; 33; 22%
Chase---------149; 40; 27%
Soliola---------305; 34; 11%
Witt-----------244; 36; 15%
Galea----------423; 35; 8%
Dureau---------191; 46; 24%
Monaghan------375; 32; 9%

What does this tell us?

1 - Other "key" players have indeed missed more tackles than Kearney.
2 - Kearney has missed a significantly bigger % of his tackles than any of the others - over four times as many per tackle as some of the others.

What does it NOT tell us?

1 - How many tackles BK missed playing at 6 c/w at 1?
2 - What ELSE BK did that contributed significantly to our performance on the field.
3 - How many matches each player has played, and what the match averages are.*

Can we conclude anything form the missed tackle stats?

Even though GB's figures could be viewed as misleading in isolation - the figures I have quoted maybe give a more balanced picture - he is surely spot on when he points out that to judge a player - one who most of us view (or, for those with short memories, viewed) as being our most important creative and threatening player on the park - by a single stat is disingenuous at best.

* EDIT: BK played 11 matches, so he missed 2.36 tackles per match. Chase played 15 matches, so he missed 2.67 tackles per match. So did Monaghan, so he missed 2.13 tackles per match. Durerau played 14 matches so he missed 1.92 tackles per match.

yup

But this won't prevent B4C getting herself in a tizz.

Btw, same stats for Whitehead and Lynch, and also James Graham and Morley:

Whitehead----411; 49; 12%
Lynch---------445; 7; 1.6%
Graham-------368; 10; 2.7%
Morley--------370; 20; 5.4%

Any Lynch-baggers around care to comment?

You know they wont because that was their "opinion" - that was only based on what they thought and not the facts !!!

Other thing around BKs missed tackles is how many were last line "we've been cut to shreds" misses. There were tackles he "missed" in the Wigan game where there was no chance in hell of anyone making them. Fullback always gets made to look like a tit in a bad defensive performance.

^
This

Any full back that gets massively exposed by other people's mistakes is going to look bad.

Is it just me, or (on this occasion) is B4C2010 on the wrong end of a right good stonking on the subject of BK?

Clearly hasnt got a clue



But in saying that it could be royston in disguise, bit like Russell Crowe on t&a site

Even simpler...if any of the Top 8 were offered either Royston or Kearney FOC, what are the odds of Shad being the pick?

Rocket science it is not.

Except we know Michael exists...

In fairness, when he is not on one his many wind-ups he often makes good points and does have a clue - admittedly, depending on which is the current persona. The Sacha Baron Cohen of the internet forums, even. That is why I can't work out whether this (and various others of late) is indeed a wind-up, that maybe he is getting bored of this persona now, or whether it is indeed genuine opinion. If the latter, well fully entitled to it obviously - but IMO surprising.

To be fair i reckon both would be snapped up quite sharpish by top 8 teams if FOC

The scenario was "either/or".

Connor has tweeted that Kearney is likely to play but Scruton needs another week.

Call me pessimistic, but I can see a return to the silly scenario of Shad and BK sharing 1 and 6 duties..

He also played some games at 7 and played well. I can't remember who played stand off but prior to Jeffries lets be honest it's been AN Other. I like BK but the missed tackle stat does support what I've thought watching him from the stand. With exception of the Webb tackle in the Leeds game I can't think of a 1 on 1 tackle he's actually made while defending at FB. Having said that there's lots of halves who aren't defensively solid but in a team as fragile as we have been we cannot protect him.

Line call for me, a classy player with the ball who has always given everything but in a team that is defensively suspect, he stands out.

With 3 fit half backs we can only hope he plays Kearney at FB. But Shad doesnt deserve to be dropped. Maybe to be played in Centres, either way it will be a interesting squad selection come Sunday