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 14.58) 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.

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.