How is it a ridiculous claim? I told you the stats support it. If you don't believe me then **** off and look at them for yourself. But why bother? You didn't even comprehend the claim in the first place.
Man up? First he completely misrepresents my claim. Then he calls the claim ridiculous without even having seen the statistical (and I bet, observational) evidence. And I'm the one who needs to man up? He's already come to a conclusion so **** him. If he wants to speak shit that's not based on the facts, good for him. I'm not going out of my way for him. He'd probably just misinterpret the stats the way he did my initial claim.
It's a ridiculous claim because there aren't any stats to prove what you're trying to say. The very fact that you refuse to produce them because I misunderstood what you claimed earlier is laughable, it's like your having a cry.
FMD, if the stats are as conclusive as you make them out to be, just post them and end the discussion right there.
Where did I claim there are? I said there are stats that support my claim. If you felt this way, why did you repeatedly ask for them? You didn't even know what the claim was until I corrected you, and apparently you still don't.
He wouldn't accept them anyway. Furthermore, where did I say they are conclusive? I said they are supportive.
lol. Couldn't give a ****. The stats are there for you all to see. I'm not going to the trouble of posting them when you blokes aren't even reading what I'm writing.
I couldn't care less about the result of the argument either way but if you're going to use statistics to back up your argument then it's pretty weak not to include them. I'm not going to write a scientific article providing only the conclusion and discussion of results while leaving out the studies and results themselves am I?
It's a RL forum ffs. Comparing it to a scientific article is bloody ridiculous. If he, you or anyone else actually gave a **** what they were, you'd have looked them up at the time, instead of continually badgering me. As I said, when people fail to comprehend my claim, and then call it ridiculous, out of hand, I'm not going to go to the trouble of posting easily accessible information.
You had your mind made up from the moment I put shit on Vatuvei during the Manly game. ffs you said Vatuvei would be your first player picked for NZ, and tried to inject the Warriors win/loss record without him - You asked someone else to post stats so it's fairly clear you're just a lazy **** who wants everything delivered to him, especially if it's unfavourable to your ears. It's obvious you have a stiff one for him. I claimed his ball control was the worst I have seen from a winger over a long period of time. You called this comment ridiculous and then when I posted stats showing his hands have been the worst of any winger over the last two years, you replied with a laughable comment that his poor handling stats are due to the number of kicks his team mates put up for him. You should then be able to understand why I am reticent to post more stats - Clearly you'll just make up some bullshit excuse to discount them. The original statement which you and EWS misinterpreted was "Perrett makes far more hard yards." You both thought I meant he makes harder yards, which is obviously not what I said. The statement means, of hard yards, Perrett makes more (IMO.) Fairly elementary. Of course you then scoffed at this claim, by saying I'm probably the only one who thinks it - Nice retort. And you have the audacity to lambaste my style of argument. Please. I did indeed say it is evident in the statistics (which it is IMO), if you care to look at them. I also said it is supportive. I stand by both statements. I did not say it proves I'm right. I provided links to two different sites. It's all there in black and white. We both know why you haven't taken the 5 or so minutes to review the stats.
I didn't see you provide stats for your claim that Vatuvei is kicked to more than all or most other wingers. I'll take you pathetic reply as a concession of defeat.
