Search results

Compared to the Brumbies and Tahs the forwards look soft. I think the Force have a much stronger back-row too. Really need some more strong ball-runners.

That's the thing though isn't it. Lots of players developing and not many who are their yet, and the experienced ones have seen a dip in form recently. Eg. Simmons, Horwill. I do like the prospect of our very own Vermeulen, I hope your right on that one!

Great back-line. Sorry about the forwards.

If Phipps can't pass I'd hate to hear what they say about Burgess.

Possibly Fotu could make the squad with a strong super rugby season next year.

I pick Hooper too, but for his attacking play which is much needed at the moment.

Exactly. My point is Stats don't show the full picture. Yet I can work them towards my favour or most arguments.

Isn't try scoring the most important! It's where you get points and win games isn't it? Doesn't the stats reflect Hodgson being more opportunistic? Who cares if it's from 1 metre out? The stats indicate he's scoring tries and Hooper isn't.

@TWAS According to fox sports Hodgson scored 6 tries for the Force in 16 games and Hooper only scored 2 in 17 games. You indicted that the Force has significantly less possession then the Tahs. A stat which you used to indicate Hooper was a more effective pilferer. He made more pilfers but had...

How about the game where Hodgson made 2 turn-overs in 10 minutes to Hoopers zero. In the exact same environment as they were on the same team in the same game. 2 turnovers in 10minutes. Hooper none. That is a pretty bloody good comparison if you ask me. It really shows where the mind-set of...

Actually never said he was amazing just a better defensive player then Hooper.

True. BUT his Stats show him being the best attacking back in Aus. According to your logic he should be the best attacking option. Yet its funny how his attacking stats didn't back up his attacking or lack of attacking ability for the wallabies.

So Beale should be 12 because his Stats are far better then To'omua's for the season? More try-assists, more offloads, more run-metres. Stats are not everything mate.

It's not fair at all. They play for different teams with completely different styles. It's completely unknown how many turn-overs Hooper would have made for the Force or Hodegson for the Tahs. You simply assume based on their respective stats in their respective teams. It's impossible to...

So if Hoopers "Stats" which indicate he makes more turn-overs then lets say George Smith. You would still choose Hooper even though its pretty bloody obvious who the better player is. Stats can back-up a point but it can't be the definitive answer.

How could it ever be a fact? There are no Stats out their rating the difficultly of the turn-overs or the effectiveness of the players hitting rucks, or how dominate the tackles are etc. That is the problem with your stats. Pretty sure I could russle up a game or two where Jesse Mogg looks...

Actually that was my original thought process. Hodgeson is an average seven, and he is a better defensive player then Hooper therefore without the attacking abilities Hooper he is an average. You really do love your stats. Like i said before stats are much a small indiciator of a players...

Not at all. He makes his turnovers due to his short size and natural low centre of gravity, not his hard-nosed strength over the ball. I really have no idea how you can think Hooper is a better defensive player then Hodgeson. Lets agree to disagree.

also, I was obviously exaggerating Hodgeson would double the pilfer stats but my point was he would have done just as well if not better.

You can pull all the stats out of your ass that you want. Do you actually believe Hooper is a stronger player at defensive rucks, and at pilfers then Hodgeson? You need to look at the fashion in which the turnovers take place. The turnovers that Hodegson makes seem much more difficult then the...