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?