No worries, I heard your plea on the other thread and my heart (what's left of it) melted. So it's back.

Am I to translate that as.... "I don't know"??

I'd assume that a "metre" is the number of metres you run with the ball in your hand? and a "Carry" is the number of times you run with the ball in your hand!? Would that be right?! I'm sure I'm being thick but with the highest being sub 150 that would suggest that a length of the field effort would instantly put you towards the top of the "metre" list?!

I assume it's meters made with ball in hand, however if that were always the case the wingers and fullbacks stats would surely be far larger from kick returns? or are they not counted?

Correct.

I may have an idea but it's not one I'm prepared to share with the likes of you. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more questions than answers.

Given the propensity for one of our 'props' being driven back in the tackle I'm surprised he's still in positive territory.

Sorry mate, I just could no resist!

I actual think it is metres made in a forward direction towards the opposition line on the pitch while carrying the ball, so metres gained, not metres run, there is a difference. American Football style is probably the best way to describe it. It must therefore be technical possible (however unlikely) to have a negative metres gained number, if every time you got the ball you were pushed back beyond the point where you first received it... now that is a question to make your brain hurt!

Charming! Thanks.







It's all pretty much bo[ill[/iocks anyway if you think about it. You could win an award for "Top Tackler" but doesn't that just mean your team has had more time defending?!

Technically, the most impressive stat would be if the whole team had made 0 tackles. (i.e. a 100-0 score line with the opponents only ever kicking off!)

You've soon changed your tune.

It only seems like yesterday (or the day before) when the number ot try assists credited to Lee Smith in 2008 was proof positive of his averageness.

(I'm sure you realise that I'm not an emoticom kind of guy anymore but if I were I'd be winking at you right now.)

So Ben Jones-Bishop got a try assist for assisting himself? Is that right? Really?

He put an attacking kick in for someone to score. Had somebody else touched down it would have been an assist. The fact that he touched down (or not quite in this case), does it really make it any different?

It's not like running all the way with the ball in hand, or even doing a chip and catch of the ball. Like others, I agree it sounds daft, but technically speaking it is absolutely correct.

Can we keep the Lee Smith stuff to just one thread?! I'm getting sick of re-typing it in different places.

In this particular instance, I'm just saying that stats are interpretable. I'm pretty sure you, of all people, don't need telling that. The "tackle" stat in particular. Malcolm Alker gets a lot of praise from the Sky boys about being constantly in the top tacklers lists, but I'd suggest that it isn't really worthy of praise given the amount of defending Salford are expected to do.




And it was 2009.

I think it's still worthy of praise, in context, given he usually couples quantity with quality. Both the top tacklers in 2010 (Dallas Johnson and Alker) recorded 97% in tackle effectivenes (misses/(tackles+misses)) Sky will have to find someone else to talk about in 2011.

Looking down the top tacklers from 2010:

Dallas Johnson - 97%
Malcolm Alker - 97%
Heath L'Estrange - 92%
Luke Swain - 95%
Danny Houghton - 97%
Lincoln Withers - 94%

From a Leeds' forward perspective in 2010:

The range was from

Sinfield, Pitts - 96%
Bailey, Burgess, Clarkson, Peacock - 95%

To

McShane, Eastwood - 89%

Yup. I know.