Mitchell Pearce

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Worth him getting picked and losing just to make you sad merkins miserable tbh

Nonsense, having Pearce in the team and losing makes it 100% better lol. I for one enjoy seeing him fail and wouldn't want that to change. This year with Thurston, Inglis and Scott ruled out of State of Origin it looks like an easy victory for NSW even with Pearce in the team. However I'm going to be hoping and praying that he continues to screw up and hand Queensland another victory just because I want all members of the NSW coaching staff given the boot.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Trent hodkinson without Pearce- 67%
Trent hodkinson with Pearce- 33%.

Trents winning record without pearce is double.

Pearce's record without hodkinson is lower.

Hokko was a champion player and it really hurt Canterbury when he left. He's far superior to that dud from the Roosters.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Thankfully with Pearce selected we'll also get Robbie at Hooker - Roosters fans love him

 

[adamkungl]

Nonsense, having Pearce in the team and losing makes it 100% better lol.

So we're all in agreement that Pearce should be picked then haha

 

[Valheru]

Trent Hodkinson has a 50% win record. Lowered by his games partnering Pearce

Which has nothing to do with the fact Adam Reynolds has a 0% winning record.

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

Trent hodkinson without Pearce- 67%
Trent hodkinson with Pearce- 33%.

Trents winning record without pearce is double.

Pearce's record without hodkinson is lower.

The sample size for this analysis is too small to be meaningful.

 

[mxlegend99]

Which has nothing to do with the fact Adam Reynolds has a 0% winning record.

I didn't bring him up. You did (this is supposed to be a Mitchell Pearce topic).

But ok....Adam Reynolds ... yeah he has a 0% record. But he has only played 2 matches and if he won his third match he would have a better success rate than Mitchell Pearce ever has.

Pearce lost his first 4 Origin matches. Giving him a 0% success rate.
Pearce won his first Origin game after 5 matches. Giving him a 20% success rate.
Pearce won his second Origin game after 8 matches. Giving him a 25% success rate.
Pearce won his third Origin game after 10 matches. Bringing him up to a career high 30% success rate
Pearce won his fourth Origin game after 14 matches. He lost his 15th. Giving him a current success rate of 26.67%

Mitchell Pearce has proven in 6 separate Origin series that he is not an Origin player He has barely won a quarter of his games. When he loses Origin 1 for us he will drop back to a 25% success rate.

These are cold hard facts. Another fact is that literally every halves partner he has had has a better win rate than Mitchell Pearce, despite having him as their partner and decreasing their win rate.

Trent Hodkinson - 50% win rate (66% without Pearce)
Braith Anasta - 40% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Trent Barrett - 36.6% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Jamie Soward - 33% win rate
Todd Carney - 33% win rate
James Maloney - 33% win rate (same rate without Pearce... his partners being Reynolds for 2 games, Moylan for his other)

Every single halves partner has the same or a better record without Mitchell Pearce. Every single one of them has a better win record then him. Yet he was the one who kept getting chance after chance.

 

[RazorRam0n]

 

[mxlegend99]

The sample size for this analysis is too small to be meaningful.

1 series with Pearce (for 1 win and a series loss)
1 series without Pearce (for 2 wins and our only series win in over a decade)

Ummmmm I think it's plenty of a sample size to say that Pearce is shit.

 

[Hawkins]

This year with Thurston, Inglis and Scott ruled out of State of Origin it looks like an easy victory for NSW.

I never feel good about these games.

The unnatural 8 year streak and some of those comebacks in the 90's.

I'll feel good after we take the series not before.

 

[DiegoNT]

I didn't bring him up. You did (this is supposed to be a Mitchell Pearce topic).

But ok....Adam Reynolds ... yeah he has a 0% record. But he has only played 2 matches and if he won his third match he would have a better success rate than Mitchell Pearce ever has.

Pearce lost his first 4 Origin matches. Giving him a 0% success rate.
Pearce won his first Origin game after 5 matches. Giving him a 20% success rate.
Pearce won his second Origin game after 8 matches. Giving him a 25% success rate.
Pearce won his third Origin game after 10 matches. Bringing him up to a career high 30% success rate
Pearce won his fourth Origin game after 14 matches. He lost his 15th. Giving him a current success rate of 26.67%

Mitchell Pearce has proven in 6 separate Origin series that he is not an Origin player He has barely won a quarter of his games. When he loses Origin 1 for us he will drop back to a 25% success rate.

These are cold hard facts. Another fact is that literally every halves partner he has had has a better win rate than Mitchell Pearce, despite having him as their partner and decreasing their win rate.

Trent Hodkinson - 50% win rate (66% without Pearce)
Braith Anasta - 40% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Trent Barrett - 36.6% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Jamie Soward - 33% win rate
Todd Carney - 33% win rate
James Maloney - 33% win rate (same rate without Pearce... his partners being Reynolds for 2 games, Moylan for his other)

Every single halves partner has the same or a better record without Mitchell Pearce. Every single one of them has a better win record then him. Yet he was the one who kept getting chance after chance.

 

[Hutty1986]

Nonsense, having Pearce in the team and losing makes it 100% better lol. I for one enjoy seeing him fail and wouldn't want that to change. This year with Thurston, Inglis and Scott ruled out of State of Origin it looks like an easy victory for NSW even with Pearce in the team. However I'm going to be hoping and praying that he continues to screw up and hand Queensland another victory just because I want all members of the NSW coaching staff given the boot.

I'd say Qlderp are still overwhelmingly heavy favourites, with two games on their shitheap.

 

[Hutty1986]

Worth him getting picked and losing just to make you sad merkins miserable tbh

You have been carved up as comprehensively as your club's awful no.7 at rep level.

 

[RazorRam0n]

I'd say Qlderp are still overwhelmingly heavy favourites, with two games on their shitheap.

As soon as Johnathan Thurston was ruled out the Maroons went out from $1.67 to $1.75 and NSW came into $2.05.

 

[mxlegend99]

NSW will blow out to $4 when Pearce is named. $2.05 is fair if hes not playing.

 

[Valheru]

I didn't bring him up. You did (this is supposed to be a Mitchell Pearce topic).

But ok....Adam Reynolds ... yeah he has a 0% record. But he has only played 2 matches and if he won his third match he would have a better success rate than Mitchell Pearce ever has.

Pearce lost his first 4 Origin matches. Giving him a 0% success rate.
Pearce won his first Origin game after 5 matches. Giving him a 20% success rate.
Pearce won his second Origin game after 8 matches. Giving him a 25% success rate.
Pearce won his third Origin game after 10 matches. Bringing him up to a career high 30% success rate
Pearce won his fourth Origin game after 14 matches. He lost his 15th. Giving him a current success rate of 26.67%

Mitchell Pearce has proven in 6 separate Origin series that he is not an Origin player He has barely won a quarter of his games. When he loses Origin 1 for us he will drop back to a 25% success rate.

These are cold hard facts. Another fact is that literally every halves partner he has had has a better win rate than Mitchell Pearce, despite having him as their partner and decreasing their win rate.

Trent Hodkinson - 50% win rate (66% without Pearce)
Braith Anasta - 40% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Trent Barrett - 36.6% win rate (44.44% without Pearce)
Jamie Soward - 33% win rate
Todd Carney - 33% win rate
James Maloney - 33% win rate (same rate without Pearce... his partners being Reynolds for 2 games, Moylan for his other)

Every single halves partner has the same or a better record without Mitchell Pearce. Every single one of them has a better win record then him. Yet he was the one who kept getting chance after chance.

You said literally any available half would be a better option because they either haven't had a chance or they have a better record and clearly Adam Reynolds doesn't, that is why he was brought up.

lol at your halves partnership stats. Braith Anasta played exactly one origin match with Pearce, game 3 2008 (his debut). Barrett had 2 games with Pearce, games 2 and 3 2010. Anasta was there for the losing 2006 and 2007 series and Barrett for 2009, most of their success came prior to 2006 but nice try.

The only one with any statistical validity is Hodkinson.

Anyways, I'm not actually defending Pearce's win rate, just pointing out Adam Reynolds has a 0% win rate which is in contradiction to your statement that no one is worse.

Carry on.

 

[mxlegend99]

You said literally any available half would be a better option because they either haven't had a chance or they have a better record and clearly Adam Reynolds doesn't, that is why he was brought up.

lol at your halves partnership stats. Braith Anasta played exactly one origin match with Pearce, game 3 2008 (his debut). Barrett had 2 games with Pearce, games 2 and 3 2010. Anasta was there for the losing 2006 and 2007 series and Barrett for 2009, most of their success came prior to 2006 but nice try.

The only one with any statistical validity is Hodkinson.

Anyways, I'm not actually defending Pearce's win rate, just pointing out Adam Reynolds has a 0% win rate which is in contradiction to your statement that no one is worse.

Carry on.

He has lowered literally every halfs win rate he has been paired with. He has a worse win rate than all of them aswell.

Pearce lost his first 4 Origins... so no. Adam Reynolds is not worse than him yet. Pearce is a proven failure. His sample size is so big its the only conclusion there is. Every stat proves it.

 

[Valheru]

He has lowered literally every halfs win rate he has been paired with. He has a worse win rate than all of them aswell.

Pearce lost his first 4 Origins... so no. Adam Reynolds is not worse than him yet. Pearce is a proven failure. His sample size is so big its the only conclusion there is. Every stat proves it.

Cool but Adam Reynolds is still 0% or am i wrong?

Just accept you are wrong and move on.

 

[mxlegend99]

Cool but Adam Reynolds is still 0% or am i wrong?

Just accept you are wrong and move on.

Im not wrong. You are. This was my post.

Not sure why Roosters fans are bragging about Pearce in Origin. Everyone knows he will lose us another series if picked.

His current win rate for NSW is 26.67%.

4 wins and 11 losses.

4 wins in 15 games. Literally any player is a better choice than him. They have a chance at success no matter how small. Pearce doesnt.

Adam Reynolds is a better choice than Pearce. Theres atleast a small chance at him becoming a decent Origin player.

2 games for 2 losses isnt great. But it's not as bad as Pearce and his first 4 games for 4 losses is it?

If Reynolds were to win his third game he would have a higher percentage than Pearce ever has.

That's a fact. Adam Reynolds may or may not be a successful Origin player. His 2 games arent a fair sample size to judge him. Therefore he is a slim chance atleast at being successful.

Pearce is not. He has proven in 6 series under a lot of different circumstances that he is not an Origin player. Unlike every other player... he is 100% guaranteed to lose a series.

 

[Valheru]

Im not wrong. You are. This was my post.


Adam Reynolds is a better choice than Pearce. Theres atleast a small chance at him becoming a decent Origin player.

2 games for 2 losses isnt great. But it's not as bad as Pearce and his first 4 games for 4 losses is it?

If Reynolds were to win his third game he would have a higher percentage than Pearce ever has.

That's a fact. Adam Reynolds may or may not be a successful Origin player. His 2 games arent a fair sample size to judge him. Therefore he is a slim chance atleast at being successful.

Pearce is not. He has proven in 6 series under a lot of different circumstances that he is not an Origin player. Unlike every other player... he is 100% guaranteed to lose a series.

Lol give up, you're embarrassing yourself now.