Hall's lower try tally in the last 2 years isn't because he's doing more carries and thus too knackered for when he's near the tryline......he simply isn't getting the same amount of chances as he was a few years back. Several games this year where afterwards I couldn't recall either he or Briscoe getting the ball inside the opposition 20m.

The significant drop in Halls' try tally over the last two years is matched by his increase in carries over the same period which is too much of a coincidence to dismiss so easily. But of course there will be other factors and one of those is that the whole Leeds back line is missing the attacking skills of Webb at fullback



A glance back at posting on this forum will show many comments regarding Hall's early season drop in form and comments about his weight. As previously commented upon he also made some errors close to and over the line which were most un-Hall like. Another factor is the general improvement in defenses and a drop in form of Sinfield and others.

Finally after all the bluster, Juan Cornetto finally gets Something spot on, in just one sentence. And it happened to be his last.

Why are they flawed then?

You make a fair point.

My use of stats is to back up opinions first formed by watching games and players. If the stats do not back up my opinions I have to question these opinions and perhaps accept I could be wrong.

Stats per game of course can mislead for the reasons you highlight and also as they are incomplete eg: minutes on the field. However stats taken over a longer period will average out the anomalies to show clear trends. And if you use the per carry figures you add even more data from which to make more meaningful averages.

Neruda and Printer prefer to use the simplistic per game stats and presumably they use miles per day to work out their cars economy too rather than miles per litre!



Using the 'neruda' method of assessing performance lets look at goal kicking skills. Hardaker kicked 13 goals in 5 games with 10 misses giving him goals per game figure of 2.6. This is close to the goals per game average of the likes of Burns, Bridge and Tickle

However the accepted method of success assessment for goal kickers is to use the total number of attempts at goal in the same way the metres per carry is used.

Therefore using the accepted method of assessment for goal kicking, Hardaker has a success ratio of 56.5% whereas the likes of Burns, Bridge and Tickle are in the 72% to 77% region. So using just the per game formula gives a distortion. There will always be anomalies and exceptions with stats but used forensically they do show clear trends and as such are a vital part of team management. Also we do not have the full stats that the clubs have so we do not get the full picture.

I have never suggested that stats are used for anything more than backing up an argument.

if you had already decided that Wellens is a better full back than Hardaker before you got your stats, then i dont think anyone can help you

Once again you jump to conclusions. You have no idea what I have decided. What I have made clear for some time now is that I consider Hardaker to be a very good fullback, possibly the best defensively. However he certainly is not the best offensively as he currently is lacking in passing ability and good decision making judgements.

To make claims of him being the best fullback in SL without seeing sufficient of the other contenders shows a club bias. To ignore and "laugh" off clear evidence that is contrary to your opinions shows prejudice and to suggest that I somehow need your help because I do not agreed with you shows your arguments have reached the buffers.

why do you think i havent seen sufficient of the other contenders? and how would irrelevant skewed stats fix that anyway?
its not just me btw. whoever put him in the super league dream team obviously did so without seeing sufficient of the other contenders and showed a leeds rhinos club bias.







yes, because you've avoided naming the full backs who are better than him.

i'd say stop trolling, but i cant even tell if you are

If Zac ends up being as good as Wellens has been he will be one of the best players in SL history

And yet Sinfield has to be in your starting line up - bizarre

It's only bizarre when you have a biased opinion. I never mentioned positions for any of the players I would start in games.

Regardless of that, is the point I actually agreed with JC was that the form of the half backs is the reason for the reduction in the effectiveness of our attack. Your obsession with Sinfield goes beyond reasonable opinion at times.

No yours does based on last year's form he should struggle to get in the team - a definite starter in your view - as I said bizarre but entirely predicable based on your hero worship

He is in there because of his leadership qualities. The best leader we have ever had, and the only one with the credentials. Every team needs a good leader. Regardless of that despite his poor form, he is still miles better than the alternatives, who were even worse form.

Like I said, your negative bias goes beyond reasonable.

He does.

You posted several pages ago that those 7 players in your list were better than ZH as it was too difficult to choose just 3 or 4.
Wellens was in your list.

Which is ******* hilarious by the way and I doubt even the most ardent of Saints fans would agree with that one.

It was baffling to include Wellens and his seasons stats in the list anyway as of his 26 league appreances he only started 10 of those at FB.

OK tell me how many matches have you seen each play last season?

Also explain why you think that using the number of carries is irrelevant for assessing attacking performance but somehow the same productivity formula is OK when used for average meters per carry or average kicking success rate or even tackle success rate.

It is how averages are worked out. In cricket the stats are called averages and a bowlers economy rate is worked out using the number of overs (not matches) and batsmen have their strike rates recorded based on the number of balls bowled. Nothing skewed about these!

Stats are a record of facts and if taken over a sufficient period will smooth out any anomalies or exceptions. They allow coaches and managers to study and analyse in detail to assist in evaluating performance. But they are not definitive and I have never said they are. They do not record many other factors like, attitude, commitment, strength of opposition, game winning/saving/losing plays etc etc

However in the context of a difference of opinion they can be fairly used to of support or oppose a point of argument. I repeat my use of stats is to support views and opinions previously formed in the usual way ie watching the players on the pitch. I regard Hardaker as very good in defense and returning the ball but lacking in creative play.

Whether you choose to use the totals on the basis of per season, per game or per time with ball in hand, Hardaker is well behind several of the other SL fullbacks (whether full time or part time) with regard to attack success. For last season ZH came 32nd in the try assist table and didn't even make the top 50 for either clean breaks or number of tries scored. Hardaker came 2nd in the Tackle bust table and 3rd for metres made but again did not make the top 50 for average gain. But he was 8th for number of carries (and the leading fullback)

Hardaker was tremendous under the high ball, in physical defense and physical attack with great tackle busts and metres made. Where he has to improve is in the finer points of attack so that his great efforts bring more success.
My eyes told me that and the stats backed it up.

So I have shown that several other fullbacks have much better strike rates than ZH but that does not mean they are better overall and without seeing a lot more of the competition I do not know if any are better or worse than ZH. Escare certainly had a fine season and Hanbury has been consistently good for the past couple of years and a reason for the improvement in what was a bottom of the table side.

Escare can't defend for toffee, and while is a great finisher doesn't create as webb used to. would I swop him for Zak? no chance.

Hanbury has been good also but is nowhere near Zak ability wise. different level.

I agree webb was far better creatively but Zak is far better than him defensively. different types of players

We have no loose forward , no second row that can break the line , same with the half backs , oldest front row in history , centres that don't pass , a winger that can't catch and we pick on one of the 2 most consistent players in the team. lies damn lies and statistics

Try Assists Per Carry

Hardaker 2014 - a try assist every 30.7 carries
Webb 2009 - 50.8
Webb 2007 - 34.7

Yeah, per carry is a great way to judge things. No, really.

Now i'm confused, does that mean that Escare, Hanbury, Eden, Shaul, Bowen, Wellens & Luke Dorn are all better than both Brent Webb (2007/09) and Zak Hardaker?

His drops per carry stat will doubtless bear this out.

Tries per Carry

Hardaker 2014 a try every 50 carries
Webb 2009 - 25.42
Webb 2008 - 31.71
Webb 2007 - 20.10

Clean Breaks per Carry

Hardaker 2014 a clean break every 36 carries
Webb 2009 - 29.66
Webb 2008 - 17.07
Webb 2007 - 17.36

Yes really, per carry is a sound way of judging strike rates and attacking skills if taken alongside other evidence rather than using them in isolation to try and get a laugh.

The number of drops are not published as drops but are included as handling errors where Hardaker makes an error every 13.33 carries which is better than most of the other FBs mentioned.