Foxsports stats - Tigers V Chooks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
@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
 
@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!

Matulino was actually pretty good. Packer has been horrible.
 
@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)
 
Packer is certainly part of the problem. JWH misses several weeks through injury, comes back tonight and steamrolls us. It's a serious problem going into a game with one prop who started as a backrower.
 
![Screenshot (23).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093958352-screenshot-23.png) ![Screenshot (24).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093954210-screenshot-24-resized.png)


"The stats don't tell the whole story" is a gross understatement... Sheeesh
 
@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)

Another thing Blocker would have knocked JWH head off when he was digging his elbow into Benji.
 
@Aesopian said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211489) said:
![Screenshot (23).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093958352-screenshot-23.png) ![Screenshot (24).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093954210-screenshot-24-resized.png)


"The stats don't tell the whole story" is a gross understatement... Sheeesh

At least we won something tonight!
 
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
 
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
 
@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

lol..if you were able to watch the game you will realise it falls back on the inability to tackle a player or 2 which prevents them from running 50m to score TRIES..through the heart of your team
 
Packer giving away a try by having his back to the runner is exactly what got him dropped against Parra last year.
 
@izotope said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211737) said:
@Aesopian said in [Foxsports stats \- Tigers V Chooks](/post/1211489) said:
![Screenshot (23).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093958352-screenshot-23.png) ![Screenshot (24).png](/assets/uploads/files/1598093954210-screenshot-24-resized.png)


"The stats don't tell the whole story" is a gross understatement... Sheeesh

At least we won something tonight!

We finally dominate Possession & Territory but still get pumped lol... True coaches nightmare
 
@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

With these stats.......why didn't we win then !!!!!
 

Latest posts

Members online

Back
Top