Where’s Wigan’s offload gone.

[wall_of_voodoo]

Good post, NSDU . . . . but you'll surely get the usual "Stats don't mean anything" responses

If you looked at the top of the offloading table - which I think caused the OP to post the comments, it clearly shows at least three Toronto players in the top ten for offloading. Seeing as they are currently bottom of the table it DOES prove that stats are meaningless doesn't it? Taken into context with their missed tackles/penalties conceded/errors etc then you can see that offloading in itself is not a useful statistic to decide how well a team is playing or not

SO stats are meaningless. As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and then their are statistics

Slight confusion there I think, Mr Voodoo.

Your point would be a perfectly valid response to someone who claimed that the team that offloads most should be top of league. I don't think anyone has said that?

Now it could be possible that, for example, Warrington use offloading effectively, so have a high offload count and tend to finish high in the league (looking at stats over a number of years). However, a team that's low in the league, and offloads a lot, say Hull KR, may be doing so in desperation, so there would be no overall statistical link between offloads and league position.

Statisticians are careful to look at links and assess whether they are causal or not. Recent examples are smoking and cot death syndrome. Infant mortality has been hugely reduced over the past 35 to 40 years by giving advice as a result of statistical analysis, despite not finding a cause.

To say statistics are rubbish or meaningless goes against masses of evidence. But false interpretation of statistics can be dangerous or misleading.

Meanwhile a coaches job is to have the stats available, but use his/her/its/their knowledge and common sense to interpret them in a way that will help improve the team's performance.

You'll soon be getting a census form on your doormat. Maybe you should try explaining to the Office for National Statistics how they've been wasting their time since 1841?

You even admit that stats are subjective not objective yet as I highlighted you are the one taking the piss out of fans when they prove this to fans like yourself. Why any fan relies on them as some sort of "science" that player "a" is better than player "b" when actually watching them is the best way to ascertain how players perform is ridiculous BUT people love statistics even though it is relatively easy to misinterpret the information and even use it to mislead

[morley pie eater]

Voodoo,
Try to put aside your determination to prove me wrong for a minute, and I'll be straight with you:

To say stats are subjective couldn't be further from the mark. The stats themselves are completely and utterly objective. What is subjective is the interpretation of the stats.

I honestly believe that you've misunderstood what I was saying and what I believe No Straw was saying... I'm not having a go or trying to score points here. In fact we pretty much agree re the stats on offloads - they prove nowt.

If over, say, the last 10 years, the top team or teams consistently had more offloads, then it would be reasonable to claim that offloads are desirable for a top team.

However, the fact that Toronto have a high number of offloads doesn't prove that offloading makes you worse, but it does tend to undermine the idea that offloading, in itself, is a good thing.

I've tried my best to explain this clearly. I suspect 98% of posters/readers are bored to tears with this thread by now, so won't respond any more.

Have a nice day.

[SJ]

To counteract the offload argument , Wigan have made more clean breaks than any other team, I believe they've also thrown most passes. The team with most offloads is sitting at the bottom of the table.

Good post, NSDU . . . . but you'll surely get the usual "Stats don't mean anything" responses

Dave,
I said "Good post" because my understanding of NSDU's point is that he's rightly saying there is no direct link between offloads and league position. He backs this up, again quite correctly, by quoting Toronto's stats.

No-one is claiming that offloads make a team perform worse/badly. You seem to be assuming that because NSDU (and me) are saying offloading doesn't make you good, then we must believe the converse, ie it makes you bad!

My maths teacher, Bill Tomlinson used to say "The converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. 'All Boy Scouts are boys' but not all boys are Boy Scouts."

[Mind you, he also told us that Pythagoras was buried on Ince Common!]

In short, somebody says Wigan could improve by offloading more. Somebody else replies and says "Not necessarily, the team with most offloads is bottom of the league.".

What's wrong with that?

Re"off loading doesn't make you good then wemust believe the CONVERSE ie. it makes you bad."the correct word to use is adverse or its cognates. Why? because the converse of "doesn't is does" in this context. The concept your teacher refers to is correct it's just you that's misused it. Well you did ask the question!
Re the match Lucky 13 says it all for me

[SJ]

[quote="morley pie eater" post_id=474746 time=<a href="tel:1583066927">1583066927</a> user_id=3818]
[quote="morley pie eater" post_id=474573 time=<a href="tel:1582643649">1582643649</a> user_id=3818]
[quote="No straw damn us" post_id=474572 time=<a href="tel:1582641957">1582641957</a> user_id=6466]
To counteract the offload argument , Wigan have made more clean breaks than any other team, I believe they've also thrown most passes. The team with most offloads is sitting at the bottom of the table.

Good post, NSDU . . . . but you'll surely get the usual "Stats don't mean anything" responses
[/quote]

Dave,
I said "Good post" because my understanding of NSDU's point is that he's rightly saying there is no direct link between offloads and league position. He backs this up, again quite correctly, by quoting Toronto's stats.

No-one is claiming that offloads make a team perform worse/badly. You seem to be assuming that because NSDU (and me) are saying offloading doesn't make you good, then we must believe the converse, ie it makes you bad!

My maths teacher, Bill Tomlinson used to say "The converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. 'All Boy Scouts are boys' but not all boys are Boy Scouts."

[Mind you, he also told us that Pythagoras was buried on Ince Common!]

In short, somebody says Wigan could improve by offloading more. Somebody else replies and says "Not necessarily, the team with most offloads is bottom of the league.".

What's wrong with that?
[/quote]

Re"off loading doesn't make you good then wemust believe the CONVERSE ie. it makes you bad."the correct word to use is adverse or its cognates. Why? because the converse of "doesn't is does" in this context. The concept your teacher refers to is correct it's just you that's misused it. Well you did ask the question!
Re the match Lucky 13 says it all for me
[/quote]
Re Mr Tomlinson 's Boy Sout example you will notice that the hypothesis is exchanged with conclusion when converse is used and vice versa. Hope this helps to clarify the above

[Levrier]

Re"off loading doesn't make you good then wemust believe the CONVERSE ie. it makes you bad."the correct word to use is adverse or its cognates. Why? because the converse of "doesn't is does" in this context. The concept your teacher refers to is correct it's just you that's misused it. Well you did ask the question!
Re the match Lucky 13 says it all for me
[/quote]
Could we use obverse? I mean the other side of thue coin.

[SJ]

Re"off loading doesn't make you good then wemust believe the CONVERSE ie. it makes you bad."the correct word to use is adverse or its cognates. Why? because the converse of "doesn't is does" in this context. The concept your teacher refers to is correct it's just you that's misused it. Well you did ask the question!
Re the match Lucky 13 says it all for me

Could we use obverse? I mean the other side of thue coin.
[/quote]
If you flip a coin and it doesn't come down heads so to speak it must necessarily,Ceteris Paribus,come down tails there is no alternative. In the case of good/bad there are degrees of difference or alternatives ie if something isn't good it is not thereby bad it can be so so,OK, iffy etc. So in the above topic I would say no in that context
Converse,obverse,adverse may in certain people contexts,be considered synonyms but they are not synonymous But I must advise you I never passed my11+ or go to UNi and can't spell for toffee

[morley pie eater]

OK, you win SJ. I suppose the converse of "Offloading makes you good" is "Being good makes you offload"?

The fallacy in the criticism of NoStraw was that whilst he was (correctly) disproving the hypothesis that offloading makes you good by quoting the counter-example of Toronto, his detractors assumed that he was trying to prove the hypoothesis "offloading makes you bad".

Please award me marks out of 10 for my explanation

[Southern Softy]

I just know I'm going to regret this...…………………….
Offloads in general are a good thing because they occur when one player is normally being tackled by more than one opponent - often 3. If that happens, then there is usually space around where the play the ball would occur because other defenders are anticipating a tackle being made and the tacklers will be at the PTB.
Also, the attacking side now has a numerical advantage going forward into that space. That's what happens against us and we struggle to then contain our opponents,
I don't have the stats but I suspect Toronto play a mot of offloads because they are desperately slinging the ball around when losing a game and trying anything to get back into it.
I wish we could do more offloads but you have to be coached to expect the ball at odd times and I'm not sure that happens with us.

[SJ]

OK, you win SJ. I suppose the converse of "Offloading makes you good" is "Being good makes you offload"?

The fallacy in the criticism of NoStraw was that whilst he was (correctly) disproving the hypothesis that offloading makes you good by quoting the counter-example of Toronto, his detractors assumed that he was trying to prove the hypoothesis "offloading makes you bad".

Please award me marks out of 10 for my explanation
[/quote

It's not a game Morley there are no winners or losers. It's dialogue. I'm not a geek See my post to (L" above.
On my first comment on this topic I paced your post I agreed with you Cheers mate

[Levrier]

Re"off loading doesn't make you good then wemust believe the CONVERSE ie. it makes you bad."the correct word to use is adverse or its cognates. Why? because the converse of "doesn't is does" in this context. The concept your teacher refers to is correct it's just you that's misused it. Well you did ask the question!
Re the match Lucky 13 says it all for me

Could we use obverse? I mean the other side of thue coin.

If you flip a coin and it doesn't come down heads so to speak it must necessarily,Ceteris Paribus,come down tails there is no alternative. In the case of good/bad there are degrees of difference or alternatives ie if something isn't good it is not thereby bad it can be so so,OK, iffy etc. So in the above topic I would say no in that context
Converse,obverse,adverse may in certain people contexts,be considered synonyms but they are not synonymous But I must advise you I never passed my11+ or go to UNi and can't spell for toffee
[/quote]
Many happy a day in Mrs Butter's remedial English group spent copying out poems taught me nothing except some bad poems and, with all things being equal, I save my Latin for Sunday. What I have learned though, is that off loading can be done well or badly. Done well it is a joy done badly it is still a joy, just not to the same people.