Re: Danny K : Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:51 am  

vastman wrote:

I'm very much in two minds on this one, it's a tricky one.

I'm glad he's got a testimonial and if we had to sign him up for another year then so be it. It also sends out a message to other players that loyalty pays off.

That said ans I know some won't like this but I also hope he's on a much reduced deal. I know it sounds harsh but for the 2-3 decent games he gives us per season he cannot be worth whatever his last deal was - not at his age and not on current form, I do think some folk have very short memories.

He needs replacing, he's worn out and that's a fact and to do that we need to free up some cash. I'm all for loyalty and reward but it must be balanced against the future needs of the club not individuals. In the same way I stated it wasn't CC's job to promote TJ's international career it's also not his job to give DK's pension a boost, not saying that's whats happened just that it concerns me a little.

I'll say it now and if it makes me more unpopular with some (f that were actually possible) I'll take it on the chin - if Kirmond stays at the cost of a Hampshire, Crowther or even an Anakin I'll be very dissapointed. I suppose what I'm really saying is that IMO I hope the bulk of his new contract comes from the proceeds of his tesimonial otherwise IMO it's a nice gesture but poor bussiness.

Agree completely.

Re: Danny K : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:48 pm  

PopTart wrote:

I do agree with that actually. It depends on the criteria.
I don't necessarily agree that the 3rd man shouldn't be counted but who decides whether the tackler is significant?
I still think stats are valuable but they only tell part of the story.

Which was my original point - what we're presented with after a game are not statistics in the true sense - they're just raw numbers, which really don't mean a great deal and shouldn't be used to infer anything qualitative.

That said, I always have a look - and it's always interesting how skewed they can seem based on your own perception of a game - which is precisely why they don't work; as a reasonably well-informed observer of the game, you can judge a players contribution based on significance and impact - which a stat simply can't do. For example, if a player had 1 missed tackled in a game, that could seem impressive at face value - but as a spectator, you might know that it was the 77th minute, the scores were level, and the 1 missed tackle was a 1 on 1 that lead to the match winning try; lurking variables that totally change the meaning of a raw stat.

[PopTart]

Re: Danny K : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:53 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Which was my original point - what we're presented with after a game are not statistics in the true sense - they're just raw numbers, which really don't mean a great deal and shouldn't be used to infer anything qualitative.

That said, I always have a look - and it's always interesting how skewed they can seem based on your own perception of a game - which is precisely why they don't work; as a reasonably well-informed observer of the game, you can judge a players contribution based on significance and impact - which a stat simply can't do. For example, if a player had 1 missed tackled in a game, that could seem impressive at face value - but as a spectator, you might know that it was the 77th minute, the scores were level, and the 1 missed tackle was a 1 on 1 that lead to the match winning try; lurking variables that totally change the meaning of a raw stat.

That is where you and I differ Bren
The scenario you give at the end also hides the fact that he missed the tackle because he did 15 more tackles than anyone else and his team mates were actually at fault for not making them. The stats give an indication of that.
If I was a coach I would use stats.....but I'd really work hard on making them uniform. You have to trust the stat counter. I'd actually employ someone to go back and count on the tapes and validate the numbers to be honest.
But equally if I was a coach I'd use me own judgement, and it would be the lead indicator, like you say.

Re: Danny K : Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:59 pm  

PopTart wrote:

That is where you and I differ Bren
The scenario you give at the end also hides the fact that he missed the tackle because he did 15 more tackles than anyone else and his team mates were actually at fault for not making them. The stats give an indication of that.
If I was a coach I would use stats.....but I'd really work hard on making them uniform. You have to trust the stat counter. I'd actually employ someone to go back and count on the tapes and validate the numbers to be honest.
But equally if I was a coach I'd use me own judgement, and it would be the lead indicator, like you say.

And I'm very much with you on that - but I would bet my backside that the stats available to coaches post-match are *way* more complex and nuanced than those provided to fans; and they'll have the onboard GPS data from the packs players wear to go with - so they'll know what power output, heart rate, km's run, Vo2 max etc etc of each player, at each point in the game.

That's the type of data you can base decisions and judgments on - it's just not available to us - thankfully; imagine the level of argument on here if we had access to that kind of granular stuff - bagging a player because his v02 max wasn't at optimum levels in the 56th minute of a game?!

Re: Danny K : Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:06 pm  

bren2k wrote:

And I'm very much with you on that - but I would bet my backside that the stats available to coaches post-match are *way* more complex and nuanced than those provided to fans; and they'll have the onboard GPS data from the packs players wear to go with - so they'll know what power output, heart rate, km's run, Vo2 max etc etc of each player, at each point in the game.

That's the type of data you can base decisions and judgments on - it's just not available to us - thankfully; imagine the level of argument on here if we had access to that kind of granular stuff - bagging a player because his v02 max wasn't at optimum levels in the 56th minute of a game?!

To be fair Bren... I don't think it'd be forgivable if a players v02 max wasn't at optimum levels in the 56th minute of a game! Immediate termination of their contract for me...