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.

No wonder you are confused if you take information out of context and in isolation. If you include several supporting factors the results sort of well .... 'average' out.

The point here as I mentioned before the stats would suggest Hardaker is amongst the best in SL but not head and shoulders above some of the others as has been suggested on here. He looks good because he is one of the few shining lights in a very average side that has be criminally under invested in. The players from the golden generation deserve better. There are other FBs out there with different but in some cases superior skills in some areas to Zak.

I can understand why most on here would not want to swop him that is a very fair call.

Actually Sal it started off by you saying he wasn't the best fullback in our competition, and that there were 3/4 as good if not better than him. Even then that was only in response to me saying, had we not switched him to fullback we would never have had the best fullback in the competition, which was in regards to writing him off in positions before playing it, just giving an example of giving a chance before writing it off.

Now you seem to be saying slightly differently, and fair do if you are now accepting your initial response was a tad over reaction.

Do they? So who's these 3-4 players better than Zak Hardaker then?

Why didn't these other full backs get into the dream team or the England squad?

i keep waiting for the names too

Don't know if an outsider view of some of this helps but, for what it's worth, I think Ryan Hall is the best winger in superleague. However, I don't think he [u played[/u the best in superleague last season and perhaps even the season before. I know on the face of it those statements may seem contradictory but what I mean is that in terms of ability he is the best but, for whatever reason, several other wingers were more effective during the 2014 regular season. Whether this is down to his centre/wing partnership, the fact that he is playing in an underperforming team or the extra workload (his number of carries is significantly in excess of every other winger), I couldn't say. Perhaps his performances in the 4 nations is an indicator though. His partnership with Sarginson was a joy to behold and he looked every inch the player we know he can be. Did he play to that standard with any regularity during the domestic season? Obviously I didn't get to see all his games but, from the limited times I did see him, he didn't seem to carry the same threat as I would normally expect. That's not to say he was ineffective of course! Far from it. Just not as dangerous as we have come to expect.

The same goes for Hardaker. He is without question one of the best in superleague. I think most teams would take him in a heartbeat. Again though, whether for similar reasons to Hall or because of the problems he had with the disciplinary, he only showed his best form in a handful of matches.

Last season I said without fear of contradiction that Leeds had the best back 5 of any team in the competition. It's interesting that this didn't turn into the onfield performances we all anticipated and, in the end, they were outperformed by several other teams backs. Notably Watkins was overtaken by Sarginson as England's best centre and many wingers comfortably outscored the Leeds pair. Going into 2015, is this board still of the opinion that the Leeds 5 are the best in the league as was generally accepted at the beginning of last season? It's perhaps stating the obvious a little but, on the evidence of last year at least, I'm not convinced they are.

yes they are as a unit. the problem has been,for me, the ponderous half backs. both have been supurb players but are shadows of their former selves. by the time the ball gets wide defences has been set. also the coach prefers to go down the middle. god only knows why with the talent we have wide.

No, as the per carry stats show we'd be better with a back 3 of Paul Wellens, Gene Ormsby and Omari Caro.

Seriously I think we have the best back 3 in the competition but I remain unconvinced by our centres. Moon is not a wingers centre which is bad when you have the best winger in the league outside him. Watkins has the skills but needs to impose himself a lot more

No I don't - I think there are 3/4 FBs in SL on a par of which Hardaker is one - they all have different skills and deficiencies. As the stats suggest Hardaker isn't head and shoulders above all the other FBs in SL as you and many on here would suggest. I respect your entitlement to an opinion I just don't agree.

On the second point most threequarters have the basic skill set to make a good stab at playing FB e.g. Hardaker I think Watkins would make an even better FB than Zac. Having the skill set to play Stand Off is a completely different proposition. I haven't seen Hardaker display the skill set I would suggest is required to play 6 in a top SL side. He never played 6 as a junior at the Lions and he didn't play 6 consistently at Rovers under Powell - quite why Powell thinks he could play 6 now is a mystery.

That would require some new ideas perhaps something the coach has exhausted - also you have to have the players to be able to execute something Leeds will struggle with until changes are made which will be in 2017 when both half backs will retire.

Nail, head, hit.
My thoughts exactly.
Still what do we, or those who select the Dream team or the England squad know compared to the coaching wizards on here?

Ha ha the dream team - you seriously use that as a guide as to who the best players in SL are?

On the selection for the England side - some are FBs were unavailable for selection due to not being English How many tests did Zac play on the tour down under, the coaches obviously had a lot of confidence in him given the FB they chose had the opposite skill set to Zac i.e. poor under the high ball, not a great defender, not a tackle buster but a more creative attacker - bizarre that given your earlier praise.