: Thu May 21, 2009 10:34 am  

the flying biscuit wrote:

Does it mean if you use those stats as a rule to judge how well a player played you have to ignore the real stuff like taking in the defensive line good distribution from acting half and the great pass to Anderson for the match winning try.

none of that info is in stats in fact there is so much information not in stats I find myself actually watching the game...... its really interesting.......

this forum has gone to the knackers yard

Clearly opinion is divided but I think it is wrong to dismiss the statistics because they do not support your argument. If Clarke is genuinely superiour to Higham, I would have expected one of the statistics to support this.

Finally I thought this debate was what the forum was meant for, rather than it being indicative of going to the knackers yard. It appears that perhaps you have little time for people who do not share your view.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:34 am  

Lefty wrote:

Clarke is not behind Moore or Diskin or Newton Or McIlorum for that fact.

I'd have any of those ahead of Clarke, apart from maybe Newton because of his age.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:35 am  

If you like your stats compare Clarke like for like game for game against all those players mentioned.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:35 am  

FireWire wrote:

I'd say Clarke is behind all of those as well, as a starting, genuine number 9.

you Watched Scott Moore I take it when he played for huddersfield a couple of weeks ago......?

it was one of the worst performances from a player i've seen in a long time he is clearly struggling to cope with his coaches instruction of the flat pass ...pulled for many forward passes from marker, and his defence and distribution piddle poor....

but hey its "slag off one of our own" time, so lets find some more $hit players to rank higher than one of ours......

like I say gone to the knackers yard this place and Steptoe and son are alive and well.....( and living in Latchford it would seem)

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:35 am  

FireWire wrote:

I'd have any of those ahead of Clarke, apart from maybe Newton because of his age.

Congratulations.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:36 am  

Lefty wrote:

Clarke is not behind Moore or Diskin or Newton Or McIlorum for that fact.

Lefty, maybe your judgement aint what it used to be pal. For instance you were an ardent PC supporter up until he was outsted when it was clear to many he wasn't up to it.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:38 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Lefty, maybe your judgement aint what it used to be pal. For instance you were an ardent PC supporter up until he was outsted when it was clear to many he wasn't up to it.

Well said that man. The faith some on here showed in Cullen was so blind it was untrue.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:38 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Lefty, maybe your judgement aint what it used to be pal. For instance you were an ardent PC supporter up until he was outsted when it was clear to many he wasn't up to it.

Irrelevant, however I'll bite. Maybe the reason I stick up for these players/coaches is because of the amount of undeserved rubbish that is spouted on here. We all knew Cullen was at the end of his reign but I wasn't about to start joining the filistines on here slagging him off constantly.

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:39 am  

Lefty wrote:

Irrelevant, however I'll bite. Maybe the reason I stick up for these players/coaches is because of the amount of undeserved rubbish that is spouted on here. We all knew Cullen was at the end of his reign but I wasn't about to start joining the filistines on here slagging him off constantly.

Maybe your doing the same with Clarke then

: Thu May 21, 2009 10:40 am  

I have my reservations about all(well other than Morley) players. I do for certain though rate Clarke as a better hooker than Higham.