I suspect the same. There's no way he'd concede defeat but I'll assume he's taking some time to come up with a new argument and I'll take the first round win.
It is, which is why I said the comparison must be between like positions. Ma'u makes about 15 runs a game when he plays edge forward. Scott never did at right edge forward and still doesn't now he's in the middle. But Tepai Moeroa is also making 15 runs a game now that he's moved to the right edge. Wicks doesn't always make a lot of carries. In the middle there are only so many carries to share around and the best attacking forwards (like Watmough last year) get far more carries than the other middle forwards. Arthur gave the most carries to Moeroa today. Seven times this year Ma'u has made the most carries of any of our forwards. How many times do you think Scott has made the most carries?
You only mentioned "similar positions" after back tracking and stating "The stats are the only objective measure. If a forward is making more runs and metres he is making a bigger contribution. There is no way to 'spin' that."
This is actually an excellent example of what I'm arguing. Tep did get the most carries today and he played very well. However, he was effectively used as a middle forward but on the edge (Ie. A battering ram). He absolutely made plenty of metres which were needed, but this should in no way diminish Edwards attacking threat on the other side. He made less runs for less metres but had an LBA and 4 tackle busts as opposed to Tep's none. Both were a handful, just had different roles in attack.
...and just to reiterate the onfield contribution Beau makes, our defence has been pretty terrible the last two weeks without him In the team. We've leaked 57 points (23.5 per game) which is significantly higher than our average points against prior to round 20. Points for is also lower (11) but I won't use that due to the players we have unavailable. I don't remember Watmough's absence having as much influence.
It was not 'back tracking', it was making a clarification after sensing you would start playing semantics: I posted this eight minutes after the one you've posted above, with nobody else posting in between. It's not 'back tracking'. It was clarifying what should be a common sense assumption after I noticed you starting to clutch at straws.
Now who's playing semantics?? Claiming I'm clutching at straws by directly refuting something you just said sounds to me like something someone would say who was losing an argument. Although I'll give it to you...it was a clever way of avoiding a response to my previous post re. Tep and Edwards.
Exactly, both Moeroa and Edwards (and Ma'u when he plays) are dangerous attacking edge forwards, as proven by the stats. Beau Scott is not dangerous either on the edge or in the middle. Watmough was dangerous in the middle, like how he was dangerous back when he played as an edge forward up until 2011). Beau Scott has his strengths (including being a better defender and a better human being than Watmough), but he offers very little in attack other than his offload. The better attackers have some power and/or footwork, just like Ma'u, Edwards, Moeroa and former NRL player Anthony Watmough.
I responded to your post above. Obviously I can't respond to something you post while I am responding to your previous point.
I remember we hit good form prior to him getting injured and then rapidly going downhill after he left. We won four from his final six full games (with Watmough making 100 metres in five of those games). Then in the final seven games after he was injured we only won two games.
Yes they are. But according to you, Moeroa is the better attacking player by default because "You can tell the effectiveness of [Scott's] attack with one simple and very telling statistic - number of carries." I'm not arguing that Scott is a better attacking player than Tep, Edwards or Watmough. He's not. I'm saying that his overall onfield contribution, being his exceptional defence and adequate attack, has been more than Watmough's last year (higher work rate with more errors/missed tackles and less attacking THREAT). A nice way to look at it is the team's performance without them playing.
That's nice. What about the previous 13 games? We had a winning percentage of 41% last year when Watmough was playing. This dropped to 29% when he wasn't playing. We have a 59% winning percentage with Scott in the team and although it's a small sample size, we have a 0% winning percentage without him in the team.
