If you "can't be d" why get into an argument?

The SL do not find per carry stats laughable. They publish them to show the average metre gain in the official SL stats. Take a look some time. And they are used by coaches to assess peformance.



Oh yeah? But didn't you just say that comparing the number of carries was "laughable"


I can guess why you didn't also record the other stats! So I will supply the stats you chose to omit it:-

Hardaker made 3254 metres with an average gain of 8.14 with 103 tackle busts, 30 errors, 21 offloads and 4 penalties
Russell made 3548 metres with an average gain of 9.28 with 107 tackle busts, 21 errors, 28 offloads and 1 penalty

Moving back to the original discussion regarding attacking abilities of SL fullbacks I checked the list for you using your chosen stats method and it clearly shows 7 other fullbacks were better in the three key attacking stats on the SL site: ie; at try scoring, try assists and clean breaks. Laugh that one off



Difficult to pick just 3 or 4 out of the list of 7

Perhaps if you were able to use some stats to back up your claims then you would be more credible eh rhinoms

Coaches and managers make great used of their laptops.

With regard to errors the SL stats record 11 full backs with a lower error count than Hardaker and 3 with a higher error count.

I fully agree with Zak's excellent capabilities under the high ball and but this discussion was not about defense

Please do try though, we're all dying to know.

when did anyone ask who was ahead of Harkdaker in those 3 stats averages?
i asked who the 3 or 4 full back backs are who are at least as good as Hardaker.

It's 7 now apparently



Escare, Hanbury, Eden, Shaul, Bowen, Wellens and the almighty Luke Dorn

greg eden must be better as he plays for brisbane broncos,and he's the new billy slater

also, if anyone wants to play a game:

ive decided that wingers can be boiled down to their abilities via 3 main stats (tries, clean breaks & metres per carry) given that their job is to score tries and sometimes help a team out of their 20

Player A: a try every 14.55 carries; a clean break every 11.19 carries; 9.01 metres per carry
Player B: a try every 16.18 carries; a clean break every 12.95 carries; 9.08 metres per carry
Player C: a try every 26.43 carries; a clean break every 23.5 carries; 7.54 metres per carry

anyone want to guess which one is easily England's first choice winger, is in the Super League Dream Team, and was included in the World XIII (even though i can see from his stats he's a fat sack of crap)?

I wouldn't call Tommy Makinson fat or crap

I was just looking at wingers myself. Going by tries per carry then Richard Owen, Gene Ormsby, Francis Meli and Omari Caro are all superior wingers compared to Ryan Hall. Omari Caro almost 3 times the finisher that Ryan Hall is

i think that you have fully illustrated just how important stats are in regards to which players are better than others with this post

imo stats can be very useful but they clearly don't always reveal the whole truth and i'm pretty sure that team coaches (and in any sport)that are worth their salt, wouldn't pick their teams based on them alone

i'd much rather watch the game and then judge who i think is the better player rather that rely on stats

Ok here is another game

Team A: score a try every 34.57 carries, and a try assist every 42.79 carries, make a clean break every 27.05 carries with a m/c average of 7.04
Team B: score a try every 45.02 carries, and a try assist every 53.25 carries, make a clean break every 33.16 carries with a m/c average of 6.86
Team C: score a try every 56.41 carries, and a try assist every 69.69 carries, make a clean break every 38.75 carries with a m/c average of 6.39

Anyone want to guess which team finished 1st, which team finished last and for a bonus point in what place did team B finish.?

And the relevance to your flawed Hardaker stats is???

Zzzzzzzzzz

I'll play!

its a trick question...
Team A is Wigan
Team C is London
Team B is Leeds

but...

wait for it...

Saint Helens finished first, and also won Super League

Looks a good game that but you forgot to name those 3-4 full backs who're better than ZH

this. still waiting...

Sorry no bonus point for you as you failed to answer the third question correctly. The correct answer was 7th place. Because this was the SL team try scorers list. As we were talking about attacking ability it was appropriate to demonstrate to you how a more forensic use of stats accurately reflect the performance of the top, bottom and middling attacking sides.

Team B was indeed Leeds but you should have read the question before answering. Funny how the 'stats per carry' just keep on correlating with performance facts!



Applying the 'per carry' stats for the SL table produces similar results and it clearly shows how better and more effective use of the ball (in the carry) brings better results both for the team and the player individually.

Jesus! Don't you just wish the season would start?

wigan = top the 'per carry' stats. Won 0 (zero) trophies.
Hall = much inferior and less effective than Richie Owen, Omari Caro, etc

can i at least get the names of those full backs who are better than Zak now? i did play your game

Yea more fool me for not using a selective part of a spreadsheet as some kind of proof as to a players ability.

You comments are simplistic and in no way refute my argument.

Wigan were the best attacking side in SL last year scoring the most tries, clean breaks and tackle busts. Anyone who watches sport will know that the best side does not always win the trophies.

I do not want to be drawn into being too critical of Hall as he is a player for whom I have huge respect. Ryan has been an outstanding player for club and country. However closer analysis of the basic stats using 'per carry' figures reflect his club form over the seasons.

For the last two years Hall has made a higher number of carries (423 this year and 471 last year) than his usual previous carry rate of 345 to 375 which was high anyway for a winger. When you consider most wingers make around 250 carries it is no wonder that Ryan has dropped down the scoring charts as his heavy workload has taken effect.

The two examples you chose were first McGillvary who had a very good season (finishing 4th= in the try scorers list and 2nd for clean breaks) so the per carry stats are in line with his performance. The other was Evans who finished 12th= with Hall for number of tries (but Halls extra carries made gave him a worse figure) Evans was better in both CB/c and M/c)

Per carry stats reflect the top wingers performance this year:

Monaghan scored 28 tries from 252 carries (av 9) - 17 clean breaks (av 14.82) - 2112 metres (av 8.34) Top of try scorers list
Charnley scored 19 tries from 208 carries (av 10.94) - 18 clean breaks (av 11.55) - 1814 metres (av 8.72) 6th placed try scorer
Burgess scored 17 tries from 248 carries (av 14.5icon_cool.gif 27 clean breaks (av 14.54) - 2638 metres (av 10.64) 1st for Clean breaks
Hall scored 16 tries from 423 carries (av 26.43) and 18 clean breaks (av 23.5) - 3190 metres (av 7.54) 5th in carry list (1st back)

In the years 2009-2012 when Hall was around the top of the try scorers lists with 28/23/25/26 tries he had much better per carry stats. In the last two years he has dropped down the try scoring list in line with his fall in per carry stats. Last season there were many comments on his drop in form and I remember in one game he went over the line 2 or 3 times without scoring - something that would not have happened a few years ago.

Hall has been and still is an outstanding winger but I think we are overusing him for the heavy work that the pack should be doing. The results are there for all to see, a drop off in attacking form mirrored in the per carry stats.

So per carry stats are not compromised in Hall's case but rather they highlight a problem.

Anyway I would like to wish my friends and foes ('opinion foes' only I hope) a Very Peaceful and Healthy New Year

What stats don't tell you is where on the field or against what sort of a defence a player gets the ball.

Without the context of actually watching the game, they're meaningless. A player might make five carries and 40 tackles because his team keep turning the ball over and are starved of possession. Yet based on those stats, he would be a defensive machine but considered lazy on attack.

A winger who constantly gets good ball in space because the players inside him are creating it, or the kick pressure is making opponents put in poor kicks, is going to make a lot of metres per carry. It's not a reflection of his ability, it's a reflection of how the team are playing. No doubt the likes of Burgess and Charnley will have posted some impressive stats, but as a complete package I wouldn't swap either of them for Hall thanks for very much. I suspect neither would just about any coach in the sport.

Good lord only 5 more weeks to go... then again, I'm pretty sure the number crunching will continue all season too.