Quote ="bren2k"Which was my original point - what we're presented with after a game are not statistics in the true sense - they're just raw numbers, which really don't mean a great deal and shouldn't be used to infer anything qualitative.
That said, I always have a look - and it's always interesting how skewed they can seem based on your own perception of a game - which is precisely why they don't work; as a reasonably well-informed observer of the game, you can judge a players contribution based on significance and impact - which a stat simply can't do. For example, if a player had 1 missed tackled in a game, that could seem impressive at face value - but as a spectator, you might know that it was the 77th minute, the scores were level, and the 1 missed tackle was a 1 on 1 that lead to the match winning try; lurking variables that totally change the meaning of a raw stat.'"
That is where you and I differ Bren
The scenario you give at the end also hides the fact that he missed the tackle because he did 15 more tackles than anyone else and his team mates were actually at fault for not making them. The stats give an indication of that.
If I was a coach I would use stats.....but I'd really work hard on making them uniform. You have to trust the stat counter. I'd actually employ someone to go back and count on the tapes and validate the numbers to be honest.
But equally if I was a coach I'd use me own judgement, and it would be the lead indicator, like you say.
'"
