Perhaps that's because since and before the times of Les Boyd and Sonny Nuckle both clubs have had their resident thug.
Saints beat us in a final, they've done it before and we have beaten them in plenty finals too.
Sorry, but remind me again when Wire last beat Wigan at Wembley or OT?

Nope. I went to the RFL Disciplinary website, and looked it up.

I find it pays to have some facts before I go running off at the mouth.

More people should do that.

Just for information:

In the last two years Leeds players have been cited 58 times, charged 9 times and received 9 bans.

Wigan players have been cited 66 times, charged 6 times, and received 5 bans. (I have included Ben Flower in these numbers, as I presume that he will get a small ban)

Are you still laughing?

No it's about Wigan's tactics and how one-eyed fans of other teams perceive them to be "underhand."

Now scuttle back off to your cave.

small ban

Glad you enjoyed that bit. I put it in on purpose to give you a reason to ignore the blatant facts that you duly did ignore.

So, based upon the facts, Leeds are bigger thugs than Wigan. Glad you agree.

Um where did you get your facts from? According to the rfl disciplinary page the 17 players Wigan played in the semi final has had 50 citings this year alone. Breakdown being:

Bowen 6; charnley 1; gelling 1; Sarginson 3; Burgess 0; green 0; smith 0; flower 6; mcilorum 5; Crosby 1; tomkins 1; Farrell 4; SOL 4; powell 5; Pettybourne 8; Clubb 2; Bateman 3.

By comparison the Saints 17 who played in the semi have had 29, Warrington had 31 and Catalans 36. the leeds team who lost to Catalans had 29 citings over the course of the year...

All info from the rfl disciplinary page - I chose the semi teams for the comparison because a) I can't be bothered to do the statistics for all 5 squads and b) it seemed an even ground to compare usual playing standards from...

Why choose the citings number to prove a point? Surely it makes more sense to choose a stat from the actual outcomes?

It is conceivable that every player from every team could be cited after every game, but if none of them actually get charged, what does that prove?

Citings are "things that are close to the line so we look into it" - charges only come if the line is crossed. But this is precisely the perception - Wigan play closer to the line than most other teams (which is why they're more cited) which gives the perception of being dirty, even if it isn't actual foul play.

Hence why I used citings itself.

Fair point tbh.

But how many players got disciplinary action taken against them. From what i can gather Wigan were not the worst in SL.

There is a difference between playing to the edge of the rules and going over them like Hohaia and Flower did on the weekend.

Who's perception is it though? It certainly isn't my perception.

I don't care about perception, I care about facts, as they are the only things that prove anything.

It could also be argued that, in the perception of the committee responsible for citings, Wigan did more things that were close to the line. However, the number of charges that followed proved their perception to be wholly incorrect.

He is just using any statistic he can get to justify his argument and refusing to look further as it will not uphold his argument any further.

I'm not looking at any further statistic because I don't have time to - as much as I'd like to compile a full model on the matter, life gets in the way. It's not any statistic, I've given my reason why I used the statistic I did and you yourself said it was a fair point.

You can ask "but whose perception is it" all you like - but it's clearly a common held belief amongst fans outside of your club. I think Wigan play closer to the line than other clubs, the stats I provided backed that up. I've not accused Wigan of being dirty or anything else, but I can understand how people interpret the citings as such (that doesn't mean they're right).

If wigan as a club don't want to be accused of "thugby" they need to step in line with the number of citings (the number of times they get close to stepping over the line) with other clubs - whatever that takes.

Reason your not looking any further is as i said it does not support your agenda and you fully well know that.

Otherwise you would have posted banned players and not citings.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

You cannot use the most spurious of all the available statistics to prove a point that is unprovable.

Which club do you follow? Have you done any meaningful research on your own club versus others before jumping onto your high horse and coming to meaningless conclusions?

But, Jack's statistics refute your belief and Jack's hold more water.

Exactly.

Well i am bored to death today. Come from work so i had a look on the RFL site and put in dates for 1 year from the date of this season Grand Final. Adn the reuslts in which team had the most players called up before the Comittee.

MAESTRO















PLEASE

St Helens got 7 players
Wigan got 7

Thats why he did not do the search as he knew the answer and he calls us dirty.

Well both are just as bad as each other.

Could it not be possible

(now this might be beyond the comprehension of some folks)

That maybe.....

Just maybe.....

EVERY team in the WHOLE of Rugby League, could have a couple of players that like to partake in the biff?

If this was the case, could it not also be possible, that EVERY SINGLE BL00DY team in SL could be perceived to have played beyond the laws of the game at one point or another?

Is that such a far fetched possibility?

Ahem



So conclusion, teams cross the line as often as each other, but Wigan are closer to it more regularly which is why other clubs fans accuse you of thugby ... Sounds suspiciously like the conclusion I put in my first post on here...

More like you used a set of figures to prove a point and deliberately did not use the others as be honest you knew the players banned of both clubs. As that's an easier count than citings.

But again that figure never suited you so you used citings to point something out. I look at all the figures and not the ones suited to what i am trying to prove and then come up with an argument to justify those set of figures.

Except I didn't look - but if that makes you feel better fine

I don't care what people's perception of wigan is particularly. One way or another - I chose a set of statistics for the purpose originally asked for - and no more

Sorry, but that doesn't add up either.

What if, as I understand is the case, the citing committee is not made up of the same members each week? One member of the panel, on any particular week, may take a more robust view on, for instance, dangerous throws, whereas the week after, all the members of the panel make not give a crap about that. For it to be consistent, and therefore statistically relevant, the element of perception must be taken out of the equation, and as you have proven with your own perceptions, it cannot be.

To say that Wigan play closer to the edge of the laws than anyone else, because a panel made up of different people each week says so, is just daft.

Except his stats are wrong, which everyone seems to be ignoring

I have come to this discussion late. If some stats are wrong, could you please post the correct stats You must have them, in order to refute the other posters claim...