avocadoontoast
Well-known member
Apologies to Packer. I complained in the other thread he only ran for 15m, but I was wrong. He ran for 16m. Yay Russell.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@ElleryHanley said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211299) said:@Lukic said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211187) said:Packer: 3 runs for 16m
Says it all really.
Our forwards don't do enough work. To win games you need multiple guys hitting over 100m in the forwards. One out running from the backs isn't going to win us shit.
I have been in Packer's corner and supporting him...but he wanted absolutely none of the tough stuff today. Wanted none of JWH.
16 meters...honestly, any starting prop with that stat should put their hand up and retire immediately. I am decades older and have a stuffed back, but I'd have got 16 meters today.
@InBenjiWeTrust said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211202) said:@weststigerman said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211176) said:Is that a record low metres gained for a starting prop?
Sadly, Matulino and Packer must be our worst props pair ever!
@jadtiger said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211305) said:@ElleryHanley said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211299) said:@Lukic said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211187) said:Packer: 3 runs for 16m
Says it all really.
Our forwards don't do enough work. To win games you need multiple guys hitting over 100m in the forwards. One out running from the backs isn't going to win us shit.
I have been in Packer's corner and supporting him...but he wanted absolutely none of the tough stuff today. Wanted none of JWH.
16 meters...honestly, any starting prop with that stat should put their hand up and retire immediately. I am decades older and have a stuffed back, but I'd have got 16 meters today.
Blocker would have got more and he has been retired for nearly 30 years.Packer is one of clearys worst signings perhaps even the worst
@ElleryHanley said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211311) said:@jadtiger said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211305) said:@ElleryHanley said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211299) said:@Lukic said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211187) said:Packer: 3 runs for 16m
Says it all really.
Our forwards don't do enough work. To win games you need multiple guys hitting over 100m in the forwards. One out running from the backs isn't going to win us shit.
I have been in Packer's corner and supporting him...but he wanted absolutely none of the tough stuff today. Wanted none of JWH.
16 meters...honestly, any starting prop with that stat should put their hand up and retire immediately. I am decades older and have a stuffed back, but I'd have got 16 meters today.
Blocker would have got more and he has been retired for nearly 30 years.Packer is one of clearys worst signings perhaps even the worst
You know what, Blocker WOULD have run for more than 16 today...in his 50s.
Seriously.
I am honestly at a loss. That could be the worst stat line I have ever seen for a starting prop. I have no words (been a Packer fan)
@JoshColeman99 said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211509) said:Packer should be dropped that’s disgraceful
@Aesopian said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211489) said: 
"The stats don't tell the whole story" is a gross understatement... Sheeesh
@Tigerdave said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211750) said:wasn't able to watch the game, but yeah, based on the stats...............I guess that falls back onto the halves or lack there of
@Magpie1969 said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211788) said:Packer should be embarrassed to collect his cheque this week.
@izotope said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211737) said:@Aesopian said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211489) said: 
"The stats don't tell the whole story" is a gross understatement... Sheeesh
At least we won something tonight!
@Sart0ri said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211741) said:TIGERS ROOSTERS
POSSESSION %
53% / 47%
COMPLETION RATE
79% / 81%
30/38 / 29/36
ALL RUNS
201 / 165
ALL RUN METRES
1,775 / 1,580
POST CONTACT METRES
676 / 624
LINE BREAKS
5 / 10
TACKLE BREAKS
38 / 32
AVERAGE SET DISTANCE
46.7 / 43.9
KICK RETURN METRES
176 / 112
AVERAGE PLAY THE BALL SPEED
3.56s / 3.42s
OFFLOADS
15 / 6
FORCED DROP OUTS
1 / 0
KICK DEFUSAL %
75% / 56%
EFFECTIVE TACKLE %
88.8% / 85.8%
MISSED TACKLES
32 / 38
INEFFECTIVE TACKLES
10 / 23
ERRORS
12 / 12
PENALTIES CONCEDED
3 / 4
RUCK INFRINGEMENTS
1 / 6
If you just looked at the stats we should have won, Roosters did a much better job of converting possession and field position into points.
Edit: I used NRL.com stats