Quote G1="G1"I'm leaving now but don't worry. There's free Wifi in the first class carriage. But it is a bit slow, not unlike your good self.
'"
Oh goody, so we can continue.
Can we just break it down for the ones a bit slow like me.
Last week Kirke was critisized by your good self for only making 6 carries in a match against St Helens. You were astounded you thought this never happens been so low, and were then show by tvoc that it had happend often with another player this season.
People gave some credit to Kirke last week because of his defence in the match. Your response was that he could afford to do this due to "his lazy softcockery in the amount of times he carried the ball".
This week we have another player (Bailey) who made those same number of carries, and actually managed 6 metres less yardage than Kirke last week (1 meter per carry less). You first tried to justify this as Bailey had done his bit in defence. A perfectly valid argument, but one you dismissed when it came to Kirke last week, a bit hyprocritical wouldn't you say? or at least an inconsistent view.
Then with a bit more information you decided that Bailey's low carries were excusable because Leeds had hardly had the ball in his first stint on the pitch. Again a perfectly valid argument for his first stint.
What you failed to acknowledge however, was that in this game the Leeds team carried the ball for the second highest number of times they had done in a game this year, and 19 more times than they had the previous week. Now it does not take much to work out that as Leeds had carried the ball a very low number of times in the first 20 minutes of the game, that as the number of carries at the end of the game was high, that it goes without saying that for 60 minutes of the game we carried the ball much higher than average. In the interests of fairness it would also be fair to assume that any player who had played in that first stint would have had ample opportunity to redeem themselves on the carries in their next stint.
By contrast to this, last week against Saints, when Kirke entered the field as a sub, he came on at a point where the momentum had shifted and Saints were dominating the game with a large percentage of the ball. For some reason this does not seem to have been taken into account when critisizing him last week, unlike the player this week. Could it be that you might have learned something from last weeks critique?
It should also be noted that taking our forwards as group this week, not including hookers, they carried the ball more times than they did last week against Saints, which you would expect from the additional carries. So wouldn't it be fair to assume that whichever player carried the ball the lowest this week would still have exceeded whoever it was last week?
I also wish to add, that I am not critisising Bailey. I thought at the game only Ambler could hold his head high from the whole group of forwards. Although since seeing those stats, Peacock really is immense.
