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.