Re: McDermott : Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:50 pm  

The total points conceded is helped massively by the final 7 games of the regular season (23 Rounds). We averaged just 14.8 in those 7 games, in the opening 16 rounds the figure was 29.5 (which if we carried on at that rate we would've conceded over 200 points more than 2015). Last year we conceded on average 20.5 during the opening 23 rounds.

So posters saying the defence was poor during the first half of the year does actually stand up with figures, as well as being plainly obvious just by watching what was happening on the pitch.

Re: McDermott : Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:53 pm  

There's also a huge difference in letting in 20 points when you're attack is garbage to letting the same points in when you can't score and need to rely on a tight defence to have a chance of winning. Letting in some soft tries at the end of a game when you're winning by 20+ isn't the same as letting those same tries in when the game is on the line.

But I'm sure a certain poster knows that.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:20 am  

Him wrote:

You don't think our defence last season had any bearing whatsoever on our attack?

Not really no. We were an 'attacking side' last year. We scored far more points than anyone. That made things far easier for our defence, which wasn't great

Unfortunately you appear to be doing your usual of arguing like a politician. You're trying to deny the other argument has any validity whatsoever. It's a popular, if somewhat simple debating tactic. Which is why it's used so often by politicians.

You appear to be arguing that your belief has validity simply because you believe it. No logic or evidence behind it, simply that you believe the defence has been terrible this year, and is brilliant last year therefore that was the case.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:41 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

The total points conceded is helped massively by the final 7 games of the regular season (23 Rounds). We averaged just 14.8 in those 7 games, in the opening 16 rounds the figure was 29.5 (which if we carried on at that rate we would've conceded over 200 points more than 2015). Last year we conceded on average 20.5 during the opening 23 rounds.

So posters saying the defence was poor during the first half of the year does actually stand up with figures, as well as being plainly obvious just by watching what was happening on the pitch.

The goal post changing starts. The defence hasn't now been bad this year, it has been bad for a certain cherry picked portion of the year

This year, in the 7 games between 4th march and 9th april we also only conceded an average of 20.5, and that was early season by any measure.

If we were to make those last 7 games you cherry picked the last 8 games, that number goes up to 18.9points per game.

If we make those last 7 games you cherry picked the 2nd half of the season that number shoots up to 25.6 ppg

The number for the first half of the season would drop to 25.2ppg.

Its almost like if we wanted to cherry pick the figures, we could show pretty much anything, and if we were cherry picking stats to show the defence as better later in the year you would certainly start just after we had conceded 52pts, 40pts, 52pts.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:47 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

There's also a huge difference in letting in 20 points when you're attack is garbage to letting the same points in when you can't score and need to rely on a tight defence to have a chance of winning. Letting in some soft tries at the end of a game when you're winning by 20+ isn't the same as letting those same tries in when the game is on the line.

But I'm sure a certain poster knows that.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

Losing 56-12, or 52-12 or 40-8 or 52-18 runs up stats on what you concede but isn't really a telling about your defence. Those scores are indicative of a team low on confidence who are running on empty rather than a team which can't defend.

Your defence is really tested when the game is on the line, when games finish 10-12, 15-20, 18-16, 8-0, 20-18, 20-16 etc

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:10 am  

I'm gonna say my piece, and that's it. I'm not gonna get sucked into a 40 page tedious quotathon with smokey justified by ''well this is a forum for debate''. No doubt smokey will rebuke my post and have his fabled last word on the subject.

The reason leeds are where they are, is because of defence. In the first half the season leeds hemorrhaged points. They were getting marched down the field with ease. Teams were punching holes left right and centre. We were constantly in scramble defence and set recovery mode.

Leeds attack was also poor. But wigan's attack has been poor. The reason they are in the top 4 is because of their defence. Leeds defence tightened up towards the end and thus they started to win some games. But such was the severity and poorness of the defence early on they had lost far too many games by far too big a margin to get into the top 8.

I don't care what the stats say. That's it. Quote away, disect every line in great deal, it won't change my opinion, you'll be wasting your time.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:17 am  

FlexWheeler wrote:

I'm gonna say my piece, and that's it. I'm not gonna get sucked into a 40 page tedious quotathon with smokey justified by ''well this is a forum for debate''. No doubt smokey will rebuke my post and have his fabled last word on the subject.

The reason leeds are where they are, is because of defence. In the first half the season leeds hemorrhaged points. They were getting marched down the field with ease. Teams were punching holes left right and centre. We were constantly in scramble defence and set recovery mode.

Leeds attack was also poor. But wigan's attack has been poor. The reason they are in the top 4 is because of their defence. Leeds defence tightened up towards the end and thus they started to win some games. But such was the severity and poorness of the defence early on they had lost far too many games by far too big a margin to get into the top 8.

I don't care what the stats say. That's it. Quote away, disect every line in great deal, it won't change my opinion, you'll be wasting your time.

That you know your post to be untrue that you had to preface with excuses means I don't need to pick it apart. You know it to be untrue, as do I.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:39 am  

FlexWheeler wrote:

I'm gonna say my piece, and that's it. I'm not gonna get sucked into a 40 page tedious quotathon with smokey justified by ''well this is a forum for debate''. No doubt smokey will rebuke my post and have his fabled last word on the subject.

The reason leeds are where they are, is because of defence. In the first half the season leeds hemorrhaged points. They were getting marched down the field with ease. Teams were punching holes left right and centre. We were constantly in scramble defence and set recovery mode.

Leeds attack was also poor. But wigan's attack has been poor. The reason they are in the top 4 is because of their defence. Leeds defence tightened up towards the end and thus they started to win some games. But such was the severity and poorness of the defence early on they had lost far too many games by far too big a margin to get into the top 8.

I don't care what the stats say. That's it. Quote away, disect every line in great deal, it won't change my opinion, you'll be wasting your time.

Think that's a pretty fair assessment. Your confidence and composure with the ball also suffers when you're being pulled apart in D.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:58 am  

FlexWheeler wrote:

I'm gonna say my piece, and that's it. I'm not gonna get sucked into a 40 page tedious quotathon with smokey justified by ''well this is a forum for debate''. No doubt smokey will rebuke my post and have his fabled last word on the subject.

The reason leeds are where they are, is because of defence. In the first half the season leeds hemorrhaged points. They were getting marched down the field with ease. Teams were punching holes left right and centre. We were constantly in scramble defence and set recovery mode.

Leeds attack was also poor. But wigan's attack has been poor. The reason they are in the top 4 is because of their defence. Leeds defence tightened up towards the end and thus they started to win some games. But such was the severity and poorness of the defence early on they had lost far too many games by far too big a margin to get into the top 8.

I don't care what the stats say. That's it. Quote away, disect every line in great deal, it won't change my opinion, you'll be wasting your time.

I'd agree with with, as well as the stats posted earlier which support it that in the first half of the year we were conceding considerably more points. Of course this is cherry picking because it also tells the story of us struggling to defend with Burrow as a 9, and our defence tightened up with the arrival of Segeyaro and even when Falloon managed to play.

Our awful defence put a lot of pressure on our attack, an attack that without 2 pivots from last year (3 if you count Mags missing most games) and at least one back missing from round 3 onwards, was always going to struggle in the first place. This year we needed defence to take the pressure off while we adjusted. That didn't happen and this is the result.

Re: McDermott : Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:06 pm  

Leeds see the amount of points conceded over the first 23 rounds rise by 16%

Leeds concede 99 points more than the previous year

Leeds see the amount of points scored over the first 23 rounds fall by 46%

leeds score 354 fewer points than the previous year

Leeds go from the best offence in the league by some distance to the worst offence in the league.

Leeds go from the 6th best defence in the league to the 8th best defence in the league.

Leeds concede fewer points in the first half of the year than the second half of the year.

Leeds fans astutely identify the defence in the first half of the year as the biggest issue the side faced and call for the sacking of the coach, congratulating themselves in forum circlejerk for their astuteness.