Fuji
I haven't got the numbers, but if the stats show that more taildraggers have accidents per X hours than nosewheel a/c, then it isnt a perception.
In the same way that if the stats show that C150/2 (for sake of argument) has more nosegear collapses than C172, then that is not a perception either.
However, it is wise to remember that correlation does not prove cause and effect, so direct comparisons are difficult, as usage will impact the stats, so a/c types used heavily for training/low hour pilots might suffer more nosegear problems from being thumped down.
However, we might agree that taildraggers are more challenging to pilots with lower hours on type, but are less risk when operating out of rough strips?
In conclusion, a risk event is contextual so an experienced tailwheel pilot would carry far less risk than me, as I have never flown a taildragger.
Interesting debate though, since perception of risk is usually a stronger driver than stats, for any people.