Seconded that's the best compliment i personally could pay to ZH i wouldn't swop him for any other FB in this League.
As for his form dropping off is anyone surprised the whole team went to pieces and he had the RFL farcical "lip reading" case hanging over his head.
He had to adapt to play Centre ,he handled it and lets not forget we won a GF with him playing there and looking more than comfortable then he was shifted to FB and has excelled there imo.
Like i've posted before Daryl Powell has stated more than once that he sees ZH as a future 6 now lets be honest DP wasn't a bad player and an even better Coach so i'd happily at the very least see him tried there should he stay and Golding continues his progress to take the no1 shirt.

His defense is usually based on physicality and his attacking runs are certainly not based on silky skills. You have chosen to overlook that he has also made positioning errors that let in tries. Having said that my critical comments were made with regard to his attacking abilities as the discussion was about Hardaker as a possible Stand Off.




Escare, Hanbury, Bowen, Lomax, Eden, Grix, Rankin, Godinet ,Wellans, Eden, Dorn, Shaul & even Mathers all have better try scoring averages per carry than Hardaker

Escare, Bowen, Lomax, Hanbury, Rankin, Eden, Grix, Godinet,& Wellans all have better try assist averages than Hardaker.

For clean breaks all the following are ahead of Hardaker and several are two or three times better: Escare, Bowen, Lomax, Hanbury, Mathers, Rankin, Eden, Dorn, Grix, Shaul, Owens, Godinet, Kear & Wellans

You asked about tackle bust averages well Escare, Russell, Bowen, Dorn, have better averages than Hardaker

You also asked about the metres gained averages which show Escare, Russell, Bowen, Hanbury, Dorn, Shaul, to be above Hardaker.

Now of course this detail does not prove any of them to be better or worse than Hardaker as a fullback but it does rather support the view that Hardaker is not only below average in three key attacking areas but towards the bottom of the pack which for someone being touted as the best fullback is a real handicap given that FB is one of the key attacking positions. It would also be something of a drawback on the cv of anyone being considered for the position of standoff too.

IMO Hardaker at his best doesn't have the class of Webb at his best and this lack of attacking class has been a reason the Leeds back line failed to fulfill its promise apart from the early matches last season. Hardaker was outstanding in the first half of the season and very average in the second half. As I have said his kick returns are very good and he can blast people out of the way, but his passing, kicking and creativity are lacking. Maybe he can improve these skills?

I suppose that your hero worship of an alleged drinking chum makes you right!

All very well doing by 'Per Carry' but we all know that the Leeds back 3 do a lot more work in their own half starting sets than others do so it doesn't paint the clearest picture.

Also this good 1st half of season/bad 2nd half thing.

Well the Warrington game with the homophobic issue was Round 14 which is pretty much the first half of the season.......when he eventually got to play in the 2nd half of the season in 4 league games (vs Cas, Sal, Brad, Lon) he scored 2 tries, assisted 4 and ran for over 200m in two of the games. Add to that the CC semi and Final, the great halting of a 40/20 and return upfield vs Wire that led to Hall scoring and then at Wembley he made a break that again led to Hall scoring. Not too shabby.

Post that we went 60 mins with 12 men a week after Wembley so a tough ask of the team who were just tying to cling on in that game and then he had the 2nd trail by social media thing hovering over his head. A more realistic view is that he had a bad/disappointing last 4 games of the season....not half a season at all.

I do actually agree he needs to improve his play with ball in hand when we get close to the opposition line.......but then again so do the whole team? How would Hardaker's numbers for tries and assists look if we had an improved attacking structure across the whole field?

his defense is based on technique, im still not sure why you think its based on physicality?
do you think he physically overpowers people in order to stop tries, rather than getting himself in fantastic positions and using skill to get underneath the ball/force the ball out?


whose are, then? or are attacking runs something that you think are based only on physicallity?
his step and change of pace, are they not skills?


no i didnt, its just something that wasnt raised in any of your posts
i could probably think of a couple of times where zak may have made defensive mistakes
i could probably think of a dozen, if not more, where his last ditch tackles saved tries, not to mention the number of times he took challenged high balls incredibly well



when you look at the stat 'per game', rather than by 'per carry' it paints a diferent picture though, doesnt it?
Wellens made 15 try assists in 26 games, (with some games played at half back) Hardaker made 13 try assists in 21 games.
Hardaker made 102 tackle busts in 21 game, Dorn made 56 in 18 but has a better busts/carry average? LOL
didnt Godinet play hooker of the bench for most of the season bench too?




the stats im looking at dont support that at all, i guess because im not looking at 'stat per carry'.
he made 13 try assists and scored 8 tries, which seems about right - he scored or assisted a try on average in every game he played for us
the attacking play i see from him, couple with the (easily best in the league) defensive full back abilities make him for me the best in league at his position.
could he improve in attack? certainly. he cant throw that cut out pass like Webb could, but who in the league can?


his passing is certainly not the best for a full back, i agree. but i dont think he's really had chance to properly display his kicking or creativity yet given his role/position, but again it is probably still raw compared to most half backs.

i believe all things considered he's the best full back in the league, if you disagree then that's fine.
i know i wouldnt swap him for any other full back in the league right now, and i believe he's still going to get even better.
lets hope we can get him signed up for a few more years yet so we can find out

Really? If so they were very few and far between.


We are on about Hardaker here aren't we? Y'know, the lad who plays full back? You're not thinking of Ryan Hall?

Hardaker is a superb broken field runner and for that there is a certain amount of physicality required. A good proportion of the breaks he makes are against a retreating defence where he is pin pointing a tired defender and running through him - that requires a certain amount of physicality. Man on man defence he is as good as there is but to stop someone at full pace requires a combination of technique and physical strength - why does Ryan Hall score so many tries even against the best FBs in the world?

Printer is correct in pointing out his personal issues last season and how they may have impacted his form but they were in part self inflicted and that propensity for self destruction should not be discounted when looking at player. He may be great but if he is suspended for 20% of the season that isn't helpful

The second half of the season stats you produced showed his best performances were against 3 of the 4 worst sides in SL he stats against the likes of Saints, Wigan and Catalans weren't so hot? That for me is the real test how does he perform against the best sides?

There really is no hope or pleasing some moribund pessimists on here.



Of all the players' positions that could be considered in need of improvement with a healthier upgrade (halfback and hooker) some have to focus their negativity onto one of our better more valuable players.
As for his skills or supposed lack of them, some of my highlights from last season were Hardaker's beating of Sarginson at HQ, and his beautifully timed tackles on Bowen, Escare and Evans. Physicality indeed

Like you agreed with, the 2nd homophobic incident looked to have impacted his form for those remaining games vs Wigan and Catalans.

Earlier in the year he ran for over 200m vs both, scored one of the best individual tries from a Leeds player this year against Wigan and assisted one vs Catalans.....he also scored twice in the cup win over Saints.

Let's just establish a couple of things before we go around the houses once again.

1. Hardaker is a very good asset for Leeds and I am not suggesting otherwise. Neither am I suggesting we should swop him or drop him.

2. The discussion was about the claim that ZH is the best FB in SL and also that he should be moved up to SO. Therefore my comments should be taken in this context as an alternative view.

3. Fullback is regarded as one of the real key positions and one that presents some of the best attacking opportunities to create position and space for scoring chances. ZH does create good field position but so often this comes to nothing because he chose not to use an overlap or chose to try and beat another man when a pass would have been better for the team.

3. My use of the word physicality is not meant to denigrate ZH. Rugby is one of the most physical games in the world so having physicality is a great asset. Hardaker's fullback style is in the same mould as Kenny (Bucket) Thornett one of my boyhood heros in our first championship winning side in 1961. He is also in the mould of Wellans another full back whose game is based on physicality but who developed the creative side of his game. However as my rugby experience and tastes matured, I came to appreciate the subtler fullback skills of the likes of ET, Homes, Harris, Webb, Slater & Inglis ( the latter combines great physicality with great skill too). I do believe that ZH's current game is based on great physicality and very good work rate but is deficient in other key skills IMO.




My criticism of his defense is a bit picky and was not in my original comments (see point 2 above)







Stats per game is interesting but without knowing the minutes played is flawed.
Eg1: a winger might have no passes whatsoever in a game and to discredit his try scoring ability on his stat for that game would not be fair.

Eg2 a forward who only comes on for 10 minutes will have poor stats per game but may have made big meters per carry. tackle busts and clean breaks per carry.

Therefore a better and fairer evaluation is by using 'per carry' stat which shows a players effectiveness with hands on the ball.

eg1: ZH made a try assist every 30.76 carries while Escare is every 17.75, Eden every 17.89, Rankin every 15.9 and Wellans every 15.66

eg2: ZH made a tackle bust every 3.88 carries (note his strong suit) while Escare made one TB every 2.78 carries, Bowen 3.2, Dorn 3.5, Russell 3.57

eg3: ZH scored a try evey 50 carries, while Escare scored a try every 10.5 carries, Dorn 12.25, Owens 18.5, Wellans 19.58, Shaul 22.37, Hanbury 22.66, Rankin 23, Grix 29, Mathers 30, Eden 30.9, Bowen 30.9 and Lomas 45 (who missed half the season)

Most of the players will have played in another position at some stage during the season.




I agree on the first point but have reservations regarding you other points. We shall see,



I would agree he is one of the best in SL but I do not think any of us can be a fair judge as we only see glimpses of the other contenders.

I think that Watkins could be an outstanding attacking FB as IMO he would revel in the extra space and opportunities that this position would give him compared with the restraints of the modern day centre position.

im not gonna address all of your post, just this bit

not really, we're talking about full backs arent we, so i'd assume most full backs played full back for all the game.
wouldnt it follow that stats per game would make sense then?

if you've picked players who played lots of game time in other positions, then its just a bad comparison isnt it.
i guess 'stats per game' are as flawed as comparing a full backs stats to a rotational hooker's in an effort to make some weird point about Hardaker.

if youre going to do 'stats per carry' why dont you at least include the number of carries and give them some context.

Hardaker made 400 carries, scored 8 tries and made 13 try assists
Russell made 382 carries, scored 3 tries and made 3 try assists

his attacking efficiency shouldnt be conisdered independant of his work rate and role in the team.


also, you said you agreed with Sal that there are 3/4 full backs better than Hardaker in the league
did you agree with him that one was matty russell? lol
if not, could you please name who you think are the better full backs? or did you mean there's 3 or 4 'better passers of the ball' playing at full back in the league?

Good old JC only using stats that back his claim yet the only stat that really counts is what happens over the whole 80 minutes RL is an 80 minute sport not a per carry one.
Also re-him possibly moving to SO he adapted to FB and i personally think he could adapt/develop into a 6 after listening to Daryl Powell and watching the kid since he joined us.
Is he perfect in all facets of the game no but who is in SL?

Everyone on here uses stats that suits their argument that's the skill in debate don't see you picking up on Printer selective use of Zac's better stats at the start of the season when it didn't really matter against his stats at the business end of the season?

You ignore the errors typically balanced approached nantwich shame you don't have the same positive attitude to other players!!

So I take it that the points you are not addressing are because you now agree with me on these points!

It will never make sense to put 'per game' stats ahead of 'per carry' stats if you are studying the individual skills aspect of a player. If one player has more opportunities with the ball than another player in a game this has to be taken into consideration. I do not have the number of games played for all the other fullbacks otherwise I would have included these stats too



I didn't pick players especially - I just recorded all those classed as full backs and there are enough of them who were regular fullbacks to prove my point.



It maybe a weird point to those who choose to see Hardaker in the 'Kings new clothes' but the discussion was about Hardaker's lack of passing, kicking and I would add decision making skills and if he had the right skill-set to make a 6.



The stats are available for all to see on the SL website. In my previous post I have converted them to averages to prove my point about Hardakers lack of attacking skills when compared to other FBs in SL.

I note above you choose to publish season figures for just Hardaker and Russell. Why not others? But seeing how you mentioned it lets see how Zak compares?

eg1 Escare made 284 carries, scored 27 tries and made 16 try assists, also compared to Hardaker he made 17 more tackles, one less tackle bust, more than double the clean breaks and more than a metre average metre gain at 9.24m

eg2: Hanbury made 340 carries, scored 15 tries, made 17 try assists and also more than double the clean breaks of Hardaker and a better average m/c gain

eg3 Eden made 340 carries, scored 11 tries, made 19 try assists, and more than double the clean breaks of Hardaker.

eg4: Shaul made 358 carries, scored 16 tries, and 40% more clean breaks and better average m/c gain

eg5: Bowen made 285 carries, scored 11 tries made 1 less try assist but 60% more clean breaks and a better average m/c

eg6: Wellans made 235 carries, scored 12 tries, made 15 try assists, made 182 more tackles, more clean breaks ( not sure how many games he played at FB)

eg7: Dorn made 196 carries, scored 16 tries, 7 fewer try assists, but almost double the clean breaks and bit better m/c average




Not sure of the point you are making here?




Take a look at the above figures and you will see there is quite a choice who would appear to have better all round attacking credentials in what most coaches see as an attacking position.

I have never put forward Russell as better or worse than Hardaker

I would remind you of my original point which was:
"Most of the other FBs in SL have better try scoring, try assist and clean break averages which is one of the reasons Leeds were below par on attack last season. Sure Hardaker returns the ball strongly but not cleverly enough IMO. It is what you do with the ball that counts"

I think I have provided sufficient back up information to prove my point.

If you look at my last post you will see I have also used the total stats for the season which confirms the same message given in the stats per carry which is that Zak lags behind several other fullbacks when total attacking performances figures and average per carry figures are compared in the three key attacking areas of try scoring, creating tries for others and making clean breaks. That does not make him a bad full back but it does show that he has a lot of improvement to make just to get on an attacking par with several other fullbacks.

Of course he has the time to improve and develop his game and I hope he does.

per carry stats are laughable and i cant be d to even argue over it

you tried to compare Zaks attacking stats to those of a substitute hooker without even noticing LOL
tell me again how we cant compare full-backs stats per game because they all play different minutes?


i didnt put stats other than Hardakers and Russells because they were the ones with a comparable number of carries?


so which 3 or 4 players did you agree were at least as good or better than Hardaker?
or just dodge the question again i guess

If RL was played on a laptop, Football Manager style, then stats would be paramount. It's not. There's more to a performance than the measurables.

That said, have you got any stats on errors, out of interest Juan? Say maybe security under the high ball, or kicks taken on the full? Areas where Hardaker is particularly strong and I would guess he'll compare very favourably to other full backs in the competition. Or are we just selectively using stats that support your point of view again?

You questioned whether he could play well against the better teams like Wigan, Saints and Catalans. I showed he has done.....pretty straight forward.

I think Juan is still a bit bitter because he was the only one who thought BJB should've been FB ahead of Hardaker.

No I asked about his stats in the second half of the season against the better sides as you well knew

You were selective in only choosing the poorer sides as proof of how good he had been in the second half. Your decision to use stats from earlier in the season were because the stats at the back end against the better sides weren't so hot? Nothing wrong with that it what everyone does on here - my point was JC was criticised for using the exact same tactic as you but your use of the tactic was overlooked.

Just like everyone else on here!! What it does show for me that he isn't the finished article and the stats suggest he isn't quite as far ahead of his peer group as some on here would suggest.

He's not the finished article attacking wise but I wouldn't swop him for any other SL fullback

Just reading through the 'stat' posts and realise that these cold stats prove absolutely nothing without factoring in a couple of variables.

What would the FB stats look like on a 'per game' basis when we take into account that Wellens didn't play the entire season at FB and Zak was sat on the sidelines for a significant chunk of the season?

No you questioned whether he could perform against the better sides because he didn't play well in those final few games against Wigan, Saints and Catalans asked.....



I just highlighted that whilst he didn't perform well in those last few games, he can and has performed against those sides.