Our extra game was the Wakey home match, I doubt this plunges us down on a par with our league position.

It puts us down to =4th in that particular statistic on 41 with Cas so I am not sure what the relevance of this particular statistic is to league position or rather how you can tell it's influence.

A clean break for Wigan has probably led to a lot less than clean breaks from say Saints!

We also top the tackles made statistic which suggests we are on the back foot more than other sides but then Saints are not too far behind us in this statistic but the difference is we make a few more tackles than them per game but have conceded 73 points more. We are doing all this defending yet still conceding a lot of points.

So if you take those two stats together they are one of the best pointers to our league position IMO.

Dave

Well as I merely referred to it as an 'interesting stat', and it's clearly interesting enough to get you a bit excited, I'd suggest it at least demonstrates that plenty of scoring opportunities are being created despite claims of dour rugby being played. I'll admit it's not interesting enough for me to research it to the depths you have chosen to.

In my opinion we have played more attacking rugby this year than last, and made more breaks than we have in a long time, but we don't have teh composure, and support play to convert to points.

Regarding the clean breaks stat, I believe it has more to do with poor decision making than poos support play.

There are two perfect examples in the first half against Saints:
First, Hock's no try where he was pulled up for a double movement. By taking the outside line he allowed the defence to slide out and reduced the space for Carmont and Ainscough to operate in. If he had held straight, or taken an inside line, he would have given Carmont and Ainscough space in which we could have created the overlap.
Second, Tommy makes an excellent break up the middle out of nothing and an inside ball would have seen Phelps in under the posts.

Regardless, league tables don't lie. Just the same as results. It is like when people say the best team lost because they had the better of position and possession. If they had that and lost, then they weren't the best team because they either couldn't exploit their own chances or defended weakly.

Dividing a statistic by the number of games played to get an average is not researching something at depth, it's common sense.

As to that particular statistic giving lie to the dour rugby we play, well you know what they say; lies, damned lies and statistics.

Dave