Thought we missed Houghton on Friday , Berrigan had a better second half with ball in hand .

For me he goes on the bench and we give Berrigan 30 mins each half .

Rather both of these than Riddell

According to those stats Hull only missed 3 tackles in the entire game, so how has Berrigan been credited with 5?

So did the rest of the team.

When Berrigan is fully match fit he won't need to be taken off for a rest. But, it depends if Agar wants Houghton on the bench for his dummy half running at tierd forwards etc.

18 runs from dummy half defo doesnt look right. Dont think his stats are accurate TBH

So your taking some stats over what you saw with your own eyes.

Yes! Stats are generally more accurate than what my subjective eyes see.

I dont go into an area of the business i work in and think they are great because they all look good, if their stats tell me something else. I use a combination of information available to me to make my mind up.

I said Berro was quiet. Stats look like he wasnt so i stand corrected. Further review might be that the stats reported by SL are incorrect which is why you never take once source of info in isolation to form an opinion!

Berrigan, as Swain before him will never have a bad game in most Hull fans eyes. I reckon Crocker would've been the same if he got here. Objectivity is a foreign concept when it comes to our 'star' players.

More accurate maybe, but more accurate at judging what? Statistics measure what statistics measure. There has to be a strict, immutable definition of what they are measuring. In a subjective area like 'missed tackles', therefore, they are not always (ever?) a true reflection of what has actually taken place. To know that, you have to watch what happens and understand what you are watching. It's still subjective, but it's subjectivity based on your own knowledge/understanding, rather than relying on an arbitrary source, and is something that can be debated/discussed to find true meaning rather than just pointing at a contextless number assigned according to an unknown directive and hoping that that ends discussion.

Sorry, nodded off then!

In simply terms yes your defination of measuring a statistic is important, missed tackles have their own defintion as do completed tackles. (does the 3rd man in count or simply the 1st)

However, if your data source is the same place and they have a consistent approach to recording the stats at least they are comparible to give context.

If Berrigan came out statistically better than Alker, whether i think he was poor or not its all relative.

Berrigan Class Act!

Thats all i want to say!

They're comparable, but what are you comparing? Say Berrigan genuinely misses one tackle, but has another two added to his count for smashing someone but not technically completing them by being in contact when the referee calls held (is that how a tackle/miss is defined? Who knows?) and Alker genuinely misses two tackles, and doesn't have any others added. Who comes out on top statistically? Who comes out on top in reality?

It's a simple example, but it shows the downfall of relying/placing any trust on the arbitrary figures given.

As i said, it depends on consistency of application. You'd like to think that if Berrigan doesnt complete the tackle he gets marked down as 1 missed.

With regard to my comparable comment you are comparing players to each other. If there is the consistent approach to collating the stats and a consistent approach to logging the stats you can compare Alker with Berrigan for example knowing that you are using like for like data which may not give you accurate figure but will allow those inaccurate figure to be compared accurately, telling you which is the better player. (as i said originally)

No. As my example pointed out, the comparison is in no way guaranteed to be accurately providing the desired result. In that example, Berrigan missed one tackle and Alker missed two, yet Alker's stats would have looked better, despite consistent collation. That's not comparing accurately in any meaningful way.

If there are clear definitions of whats a tackle and what is a missed tackle how would alkers stats have looked better if one is classified as missing 2 and one is classified as missing 1? Consistent collation and clear definitions give the desired clarity here.

Anyhow, Berrigan looked poor and the SL stats are wrong!!

Because, as I pointed out, what I expect is the definition of a miss would, in the example I gave, result in three misses being 'awarded' against Berrigan.



And, as I said originally, there can't be a clear definition for a subjective action. That is what makes the statistics unusable.

Why?

If i hit the man and keep hold of him til held is called i have completed the tackle. (as long as im one of 1st 2 in, 3rd man doesnt count) If i hit the man and lose hold of him its a missed tackle. If i should make the tackle and miss the man altogther its a missed tackle. How cant clear guidelines be made to assist the accurate rating of a game of RL statistically and to ensure consistency?

Thats like saying you cant track employee absence at a company if you dont know the reasons why they are absent isnt it?

If you make the hit and the ball-carrier falls and someone else 'completes' the tackle, is that a tackle or a miss? If it's a tackle, that's an inconsistency in the definition. If it's a miss, it's an incorrect definition.

And why doesn't the third man count? What if the first two were about to lose their grip? What if there was about to be an offload that only the third tackler prevented? What if the three make the tackle simultaneously?

What happens if the ball-carrier goes though a wide gap? Is it a missed tackle against all defenders? Just those within touching distance? What's touching distance? Or is the miss counted against the defender out of position? Or the one too lazy to get across when there was a chance (only a slight chance, mind) of making it? What if the tackler was illegally blocked by an opponent but the referee didn't call it?

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.



No, because 'absence' is something with an indisputable definition (i.e. being absent). It would be unfair to penalise someone for absence without knowing the reason, but you can still track it with no ambiguity.

I do get the idea and perfectly understand, but then refer back to what i said previously that as long as there is a clearly defined criteria for what counts as a missed tackle or completed tackle whether we believe it to be right or not and that is consistently applied to all players from all teams the results are meaningful and comparable verus each other even though they may not be totally accurate as we see it. The significance of the inaccuracies are irrelevant as you are applying the same theory to each player.



Youd think it would be indisputable wouldnt you, however statistics released around absence for example are inconsistent from employer to employer and industry to industry as some absence isnt classed as absence!

get a life you 2 ,who cares about your theory about missed tackles pointless post

you are not intellectual if you cannot understand there rugby theories

Trys R Us, you make very valid points, stats can be very subjective especially where there is not an absolute definitive resultant. Does it epend on who's doing them at any one game & their interpretation of the 'guidelines' to judge missed tackles or tackles made etc.
Are the stats compiled whilst someone is watching the game live or do they come after having re watched the match back? (Assuming they have access to the RFL tapes for non sky matches)
If the 1st man in slows/impedes the progress of the attacker but falls off and the subsequent 2nd/3rd tackler complete it then they(the 1st tackler) should not be judged to have missed a tackle because the subsequent tacklers may have failed to complete the tackle without the first contact in any case.

Whats you problem with him? Just out of interest? Im not jumping to anyones defence, he's capable of that on his own, but you do seem to jump in after his posts fairly often.

But applying a strict definition will lead to misclassification. Unless all players have the same number of misclassified tackles/misses, the statistics will not provide a valid comparison. Going back to my earlier example, Player A completely misses a tackle. Player B makes two tackles by smashing someone to the ground, but isn't present at the point of completion for either so they're counted as misses. Player A has made no tackles and missed one, statistically. Player B, whilst actually making two tackles in reality, has made none and missed two statistically. From comparing their statistics, Player A looks better. That isn't the case though.



That's down to some people picking and choosing which absences are valid and which aren't. That doesn't affect the number of absences though as an absence is an absence is an absence, regardless of reason.

read this lot and translate it for me first dave, then i'll tell you