Yeah of course I am. There is an old saying from thr British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - now toddle off.

I agree with what you say Bren but its only when people try to use them to draw complex conclusions.
If you use statistics to decide who the best player is, then it is open to interpretation and misunderstanding.
If you want to find out who the top tackler is, its a straight updact

Homme Vaste, I'm not sure you speak Vastman as well as I do.
If you put this in to Google translate it will help you but effectively he means, "Yes sorry you are right. I was being an and got called out about it. I'll probably do it again though"

Hate to see a player get a testimonial, they never play well during the testimonial season , they are distracted and it also distracts the rest of the squad.

What an arrogant individual you really are. You're the one who only sees things in black and white or in a way that only suits your own viewpoint. It's not just me who's shot down your ludicrous stats argument, numerous posters have, so do they speak Vastman as well?

Or is it more accurate that speak Homme Vaste rather to well



It's you who as ever is wrong regarding you're slavish love of statistics, so why for once don't you head you're own advice?

Alternativly should I just agree with you that Kirmond is indeed the player he was when he got his last big contract, I mean seriously anyone can see he's still blasting through those gaps at speed whilst playing every game for the full eighty minutes - because that's clearly what you're suggesting pal.

Are you including JD in that statement?

Lol. You do make me laugh.
You were wrong. You'll just have to live with it.
If a little tantrum helps then ok.

Move on now.

He's damned right about you being arrogant Poptart.

Jesus just imagine if I’d of wrote either of those comments!

You’re both wrong by the way... He’s pretty fair and has an opinion like the rest of us. Stats would usually help support an opinion/point.

All I said was that he deserved another year and that the stats show he still has it.......where others said they didn't think he had it anymore.
I didn't say he was as good as his younger days or comment on anybody else's post.

Vastman chose to comment on mine and contradict my post without checking the facts.
So I supplied the evidence to back up my statement.

So if my response came across as arrogant then so be it. The intention was only to call out a bully.

A bully Vastman? So your on smack as well as arrogant. The arrogant comment doesn't come from this one post it comes from a lot more.

Don't see how Poptart being arrogant has anything to do with DK's new deal, but those who think he is should have a look at the majority of posters on the VT for comparison.

You know the signs do you?

You're from Barnsley, you got any Spice?

Just waiting for the rocket to go off, hopefully before I come to the game.

seems to be common knowledge to all but the rozzers.

Pauli signed for another year.

No it's not - because the simplistic way that game stats are presented doesn't account for games played, minutes played per game, whether the player in question was the first man or third man in etc etc - there are far too many lurking variables to draw that kind of conclusion.

I do agree with that actually. It depends on the criteria.
I don't necessarily agree that the 3rd man shouldn't be counted but who decides whether the tackler is significant?
I still think stats are valuable but they only tell part of the story.

Agree completely.

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.

And I'm very much with you on that - but I would bet my backside that the stats available to coaches post-match are *way* more complex and nuanced than those provided to fans; and they'll have the onboard GPS data from the packs players wear to go with - so they'll know what power output, heart rate, km's run, Vo2 max etc etc of each player, at each point in the game.

That's the type of data you can base decisions and judgments on - it's just not available to us - thankfully; imagine the level of argument on here if we had access to that kind of granular stuff - bagging a player because his v02 max wasn't at optimum levels in the 56th minute of a game?!

To be fair Bren... I don't think it'd be forgivable if a players v02 max wasn't at optimum levels in the 56th minute of a game! Immediate termination of their contract for me...