Have had the day off & bored sh*tless, so thought about how best to try & analyse each club's injury problems.

Firstly, it will be impossible to come up with a foolproof analysis as it becomes subjective ("well, he wouldn't have been in the 17 anyway" etc).

What I decided was to pick each club's top 20 players, mostly being their 1-20 numbers, but with some notable exceptions (Ferres at Leeds, Campese at Hull KR)

Some clubs have had 19 games (17 SL, 1 WCC, 1 CC or 17 SL, 2 CC), some have had 18 games (17 SL, 1 CC)

As 3 of the 20 squad would not get a game anyway (match day squad of 17), there will always be a residual %age of missing personnel, 15% in fact.

I have NOT taken into account bans as I was losing the will to live after I finished the analysis, but even then what's to say they couldn't have played anyway as they were injured?

The following is the %age MISSING over the 18 or 19 rounds (respectively per club) - remember there would be 15% missing whatever:
23% Huddersfield & Widnes
24% Catalans
25% Hull
26% Salford
28% Wakefield & Warrington
30% Castleford & Wigan
31% St Helens
34% Hull K R
36% Leeds

Now, as we know, Leeds have been hit quite hard by injuries, but IMO this shows they are not inordinately affected compared to HKR, Saints, Cas & Wigan

1% equates to about 4 missing appearances.

My point is does this analysis explain why we have won 3 games out of 19 this season & are rock bottom of SL (unsurprisingly) with a -216 PD? Or do we need more reasons - floods, SPOTY, NZ, Zak etc.?

No surprise, the usual suspects haven't commented on this analysis!!

Commented on the pretty similar method used by tvoc the other day.

This analysis is a bit more robust than TVOC's I think - it does indicate how badly Leeds have been impacted but the differential with other teams doesn't explain the differential in results. Its a factor but not such a significant factor.

Could you please use this analysis to explain Huddersfield's season?

Being completely objective the last thing McDermott needed after losing Peacock, Leuleui, Aiton and Sinfield, and having Stevie Ward missing till late summer, would be the worst set of injuries for many years. Ferres and Galloway in does help (Falloon was a dice roll that came up snake eyes) the coach but not much.
McDermott has had a great opportunity to show what he can do as a coach. What we've seen is mistake ridden, clueless attacking play with no structure, defensive chaos strewn with schoolboy like errors and an attitude of seeming total denial of responsibility. For me, the most disappointing part of the season is this constant banging on about how non of what's happened on the pitch is the club, coach or players fault.
Looks a lot like London doesn't it.

Quite interesting stats, add into this the relevant squad sizes ( I think Leeds and HKR went with the smallest) and it does start to tell a bit of a story. All in all its still bad planning whichever way you look at it. We at HKR said before the season started we were short on numbers and the squad we had was likely to spend a fair bit of time in the stands (Campese, Lunt, Kelly) all known for injuries.

The biggest shock regarding Leeds is the size of the fall, both in terms of top to bottom and also the fact that they look like whipping boys in a lot of games. The rhetoric (as an outsider) has always been that young lads are on a conveyor and will just step up. But to see a side that swept all before becoming a side that just roll over is amazing. That comes down to mentality as much as skill and this is why most are saying injuries although having an effect is not the reason for the fall.

Juan, I had absolutely zero illusions about whether holes could be picked in the analysis (I picked a few myself). If it can be refined in any way then great (I have not copyrighted it yet!).

I was just trying to take as much subjectivity out of the equation as possible. Having zero subjectivity, I'm afraid, is but a pipe dream.

Going with a squad of (what I think to be) the top 20 players of each team at least stopped the inclusion of "also-rans"/"squad-fillers" in any analysis of the injured. ie you would expect each club's top 17 would come from those top 20 players.

As to your point 2, as I explained, no because EVERY team in the analysis starts with a residual 15% missing (3 out of the 20 cannot possibly be included in the match day 17).

This was more meant to be able to compare team-for-team. The actual figures mean very little on their own - I suppose it means that 21% of Leeds' top 20 players were unavailable throughout the season, 19% of HKR's players were unavailable etc etc. Now you've made my head hurt - it's been too long since 'O' Level Maths!

I take your point about weighting, but this would massively add a subjective factor into the equation, & quite soon render any analysis meaningless.

What I guess I'm saying is "it is what it is", take it or leave it. I have tried to apply the same criteria for all sides.

No

Huddersfield started the season with big problems, and the analysis I assume doesn't cover Ferres and Robinson who quit / sacked very late in the off season. They just haven't seemed to recover form once the bodies were back.

It an interesting analysis but you cant really quantify injuries
Loosing a bunch of players in the same position is more important
As is loosing spine players

Also some teams are naturally going to find it easier to deal with injuries
Wigan for example can afford injuries more than most as they play a very structured game where players can easily slot in and know their jobs, they also have the most productive academy in the league

Correct, Ferres & Robinson are not in the top 20 for Huddersfield - if they were, Hudds' % would bump up beyond 30% (depending on which 2 players dropped out of their top 20 to accommodate them)

All fair, but very moot, points.

Is McIlorum's injury worse to Wigan than McGuire's was to Leeds?
Shenton's to Cas than Ward's to Leeds?

ALL analysis that "quantifies" injuries is bound to bring in argument, thus negating any conclusion - at least with this, there is no club bias, each player counts as one player, no subjective "my injured player is better than your injured player".

You say losing spine players is very important (&, I assume therefore, "worth more" when totting up injuries)
Well, most Rhinos supporters would give their right arm for a spell of Falloon, McGuire, Sutcliffe & Hardaker on the treatment table judging by comments on this board!

"they also have the most productive academy in the league" - irrelevant in this discussion. If they have a better academy, they deserve to cope with injuries better than the rest.

as regards Ryan Hall ' injury ' latest rumour I am hearing is that he is not injured now,he is suspended by the club !