Read it [url=http://leeds.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=1363here[/url....

I just have a problem with 2 this week David. The rest I think are absolutely spot on.

Sinfield was miles ahead of Burrow, and just to back it up, anybody and I mean anybody who makes 40 tackles in a match deserves at the very very least an average rating. But because of Burrow's try I would swap their marks around and that would be accurate.

The reason I marked Sinfield down was his inability to control his players. His pass to a Saints player in the context of the game was unforgiveable for a senior player.

40 tackles in a game david is unachievable for most players. Not many are up to that level.

Now you have seen the stats of that defence, surely you would remark that Sinfield score?

I disagree - most backrow forwards defending where he does and having as much game time would achieve that number - compare that to the like of Nathan Hindmarsh?

That's rubbish David.

Most backrowers do not do that at all.

Infact I am so confident on this that I would wager with you that no more than 2 players will make over 40 tackles in the whole weekend at Murrayfield magic.

No player who is putting in that much work rate is deserving of less than a 6 on anybody's scorecard.

Whether he gave away a silly offload or a couple of pens is irrelevant. He was miles ahead of the other 34 players (yes I am including Silverwood for Saints), defensively on Saturday night.

All the comments are spot on even if we don't agree exactly with the marks given. McGuire being tackled without the ball by Roby was another one of those pivotal moments and a further illustration of how good Delaney is going to be for us. He looks to be a real growing asset to the club (if we can get Scotty paired with him I think we have a real threat down the right at long last....Smithy as super sub instead of one of the predictable counter-productive hooker subs. I know I'm repeating myself but give one of the hookers 80 mins: preferably Buderus)

We must agree to differ - Kirke did 35 tackles with less game time so 40 is quite achievable given the defending Leeds had to do.

What you are saying is treat him differently than the other players i.e. ignore his errors?

Not at all David. You can't just ignore, but you match them up fairly to others, who also made such errors, but with less work rate.

Kirke did do 35 tackles, and again was a fantastic achievement, and I notice you have awarded him an 8 because of that.

Yet, despite Sinfield putting in an even better defensive performance with even more tackles made, you mark him less by 3.



I am not saying Sinfield had a great game, infact he had a poor game with ball in hand. But you can not just ignore the defensive aspect of somebody's game. What he did on Saturday is a fantastic achievement. And my argument was that surely someobody putting in that effort deserves at the very least an average mark. Average by the way is usually considered a 6 when marking out of 10. And that applies to ANY player making that sort of defensive contribution.

I am not sure if David awarded Kirk an 8 because of his 35 tackles but it can't have been for his offensive offensive contribution.

If Kirke really was the best forward on the park for us our problems are much deeper tan I realised.

If a player is in a position to make a tackle he should make a tackle, I didn't see Sinfield running all over the park to make tackles that were not his to make, I also didn't see him grab the game by the neck or instil any discipline in his players during the game.

In Salford's defeat to Cas, Malcolm Alker made 69 tackles and Luke Swain 55. The whole team made 406 and only missed 10. Clearly this doesnt tell the whole story but presumably Gotcha would award the pair of them a 10???

I hate to barge in on this debate, but Dallas Johnson (a back rower) is averaging 46 tackles a game and has made 60+ tackles on at least two occasions this season!

Which bit of this didn't you understand?



If you can't read, then my apologies as the site does not supply sound. But I am taking it you must be able to read something to quote my posting name.

He's at it again, no doubt it's something to do with my agenda.

Stop been chilidsh and ruining threads.

Why not grow up and contribute something meaningful to a thread? let's start here.

Can you explain the reasons for the below how you would agree with it?

Leuluai: 89 - 13 (6.85) - 21 - 3 (88%) - 1 – 1 awarded a 7
Diskin: 37 - 9 (4.11) - 26 - 1 (96%) - 2 – 0 awarded a 6
Kirke: 15 - 7 (2.14) - 35 - 3 (92%) - 0 – 1 awarded a 8
Sinfield: 81 - 14 (5.79) - 40 - 3 (93%) - 1 – 3 awarded a 5

Burgess: 73 - 11 (6.64) - 26 - 4 (87%) - 0 – 1 awarded a 6
Peacock: 124 - 18 (6.89) - 30 - 1 (97%) - 0 – 1 awarded a 6


My argument on this thread is giving a player a 5 when there was such high work rate. What have the others above on those stats done to acheive the difference in rating?

Gotcha

Why dont you do the ratings for the Wakey match

and lets see what you give


I look forward to seeing them

Why? I am in agreement with most of David's anyway and think he does a good job. I have already stated I only dissagree with the Sinfield mark and backed up why. I thought David provided this as a matter for debate? he's got no problem in people dissagreeing with him and actually welcomes discussion on it. So what's the problem?

RE: Sinfield but in your words "he had a poor game" yet you wanting a higher mark, confused.com

It's only confusing Lawrie if you are unable to read, or fail to read the post in question.

I said he had a poor game with ball in hand. I said he had a fantatic game defensively. I further said that Any player whoever they may be, or play for, deserves an average rating at the very least if they are making 40 tackles in a game. I take it you don't agree with that statement?

Technically true, but in reality not.

There are 12 places in the defensive line, and each will receive a different amount of work at any one time.

For someone to achieve the high tackle stats (and Sinny does it consistently), you put yourslef close to the ruck in the defensive line, so that you take up most traffic.

do these players then take on the responsibility for moving the team around the pitch too.

Also, I reckon that any decent player in the salford team could rack up 50+ tackles in a game the amount of defense they probably have to do

no, as that only meets 50% of his game, he has to have a quality game with ball in hand to get a better mark

dont get me wrong, its a good achievement (well for Super League standards....) however he had a 'mare n half attacking

Stats aren't everything, and they can be misleading both ways.

I disagree with a 5 for sinfield. The amount of effort that he put in attack and defence he should never get a 5.