I have been supporting Leeds since the late 50's and I have seen a fair few players from several eras including both the greats and the journeymen of our wonderful game. In addition I have a reasonable level of coaching and managing experience where stats were used. This does not mean I can never to be wrong of course as my opinions are formed like most others: ie: watching players in matches and sometimes in training and we can all get it wrong on occasions.

It seems to annoy you, and one or two others, that I am sometimes able to back up my opinions with stats and analysis when you cannot. So you cry "foul" and seek to insult and discredit on a personal level. Unable to counter my arguments you therefore conclude that I am unable to form opinions without stats. This judgement like much of your opinion comes without supporting evidence but with a helping of arrogance.

My postings with regard to Hardaker since he came into the side has been both supportive and critical as IMO he is some work to do before he can be classed as a 'great' or a 'class' act. I have made these comments before offering supporting stats

As I have previously posted he is a good player with a great physical game including tackle busts, strength in the tackle, fielding kicks and returns and he has a good work rate with a high number of carries and makes good metres. So he can fairly be regarded among the best defensive fullbacks in SL.

However IMO he is below par in his attacking skills with generally poor passing and kicking ability. He is often greedy, ignoring overlaps (a rugby cardinal sin) and his link play does not create enough. He also has a suspect temperament. So on attack he has some way to go before he can be regarded as the one of the best attacking fullbacks in SL. As attack is one of the key roles, if not the key role of the fullback, these are serious deficiencies. This does not mean he will not improve and I have not suggested we swop him or sell him.

So please try and accept Gotcha that my opinions are fairly formed even if you disagree with them. That would at least give you some credibility.

While I agree with your comment printer about how more than just non workhorse forwards would help bring more out of Sinfield as it was for England the problem is that these are not in a huge abundance of them. The England team obviously have what is considered the creme de la creme of that year and Sinfield (Widdop as well) utilised them very well. In superleague I believe that not many teams have more than one of them e.g. Wigan Farrel, Sts Soliola, Hull Ellis but apart from maybe Warrington who have Hill and Harrison(unlucky injury record). Sinfield unfortunately will have to make the most of what Leeds have because getting a forward like that is difficult. I am going to be positive and hope Cuthbertson in the mix and putting Sutcliffe at LF will help the cause with threatening the opposition line.

There you go again, those are not all facts, simply your opinion defined by you as facts.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but at the end of the day those are merely your opinions.

Stats - produced by independent sources - suggest JC's observations of Hardaker's skill sets are credible. You may not want to accept that that is your choice. You cannot ignore the stats - the professionals don't which should suggest they carry some weight and importance. My views on Hardaker have been consistent throughout this thread - they are supported by the stats. I cannot see where the likes of Gotcha think he could ever make a half back in an elite side on what we have seen on the field.

You can't ignore th stats.....but the conclusion can be varied.
Is Hardaker not scoring and creating enough tries because he isn't good enough offensively and creatively?
Or is he not scoring enough because he's playing in a team that as a whole has been disappointing offensively?

Swap him with Bowen, do you reckon Hardaker's tries & assists remain the same if he'd have played for Wigan in 2014. Similarly do you think Bowen would get as many playing FB for us in 2014?

JC observation is not credible at all. Until there is stats that breakdown into things like, how many tackles were try savers, how many passes resulted in a break for a team mate ending in a try, or how many breaks resulted in trys for the team. These are important and not something general stats produce.

No where on this thread has Gotcha stated he could make an half back in an elite side. I have stated many times we can not write it off until it is tried, and I believe they will try it. Confirming that statement by saying we would not have the best fullback in the country try had we not put him there. Only you and that nimpty JC have taken it off topic by trying and failing to say Hardaker is not the best fullback.

There is s difference.

You seriously think Tomkins, Bateman and, most notably, O'Loughlin are just 'workhorse forwards'?

They don't need to be the creme de la creme, they just need to have a knack of making good runs when down that end. Walters showed a knack for doing it in his appearances yet he's hardly Sam Burgess or Ben Westwood.

While I think there all very good players the three you have mentioned combined scored a grand total of 12 tries between them. I would not put them in a category of really threatening try scoring forwards although I do view O'Loughlin as another pivot if needed (very good one). And to be fair to Tomkins he was injured then getting used to league again. So I have no problem saying that they are more than just workhorses. I wouldn't view them as really threatening near an opposition try line. Wigans back line did score a lot of tries last season. They may be different this season.

Also take your point printer but I would view that as a difficult skill to see the right moment when to sort of tag along a half break or it could be enthuisasm.

Whilst on the face of it the '12 tries between them' (it was actually 14) stat seems to support your view to some extent, in reality it doesn't paint an accurate picture.

O'Loughlin scored 8 tries in 22 games for Wigan which makes him one of the top try scoring forwards in 2014. Given that he's more a try creator than a try scorer, this is especially impressive. Compare this to other' ball playing pivots' though, such as Blake Green (7 tries in 20 matches), Kevin Sinfield (5 tries in 27 matches) or Luke Walsh (5 tries in 17 matches) and it starts to look even more impressive! I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that Green, Walsh or Sinfield don't pose a threat near the line just because they don't necessarily go over themselves all that often. O'Loughlin's return is significantly superior to any of these yet he carries a similar creative threat to all of them.

Joel Tomkins scored 2 tries in just 6 games (1 as sub) after coming back from Union. That's despite no pre season, 3 years out of the game and returning from a serious injury! He played the entire season before leaving league, plus his entire time in the other code, at centre. Not something you can do without carrying a threat. in 2010 he scored 17 tries and in 2011 was again in double figures scoring arguably one of the best tries ever seen at Wembley! Again, I'm not sure what you define as 'not carrying a threat' but whatever your definition, I doubt very much that he qualifies.

Even if we leave Bateman out of the argument (although he did score a try every other game in his last season at Bradford) that still leaves at least 3 forwards at Wigan that can't convincingly be labelled as 'not carrying a threat near the opposition line' which, I think you'll agree, doesn't really tally with the argument you were putting across originally.

It's not even about scoring tries to an extent even though I criticised the lack of tries for Leeds forwards......it's about making the runs that draw defenders in that lead to the overlaps and easy tries for the centre/wingers to complete. Charnley, so many of his tries are so simple and easy (that's not a knock on the guy btw Wigan fans, I think he's a great winger, he just gets a lot more set up for him on a plate compared to other teams.)

Agree with that Printer. One interesting stat from the NRL was that more tries were scored on the play after George Burgess had a run than any other player. That's because if not properly defended he'd score himself, so the mere fact of him getting the ball near the line draws in defenders. Dummy runs are even more important, and I'm not sure if the stats on them are copllected?

The stats are very relevant the fact they don't suit your argument is another matter. If they did produce those stats you would still stubbornly argue against them if they didn't give you the outcome you wanted. Given the clubs are the ones requesting the stats it would suggest that those you are suggesting are so spurious so not worthy of the time in collecting them.

On the half back thing - Gotcha has given examples why he thinks he has the skill set to make a half back in the Leeds side - so unless you don't think Leeds will be an elite side then my point is valid. The second reason why I don't think it will work is history suggests it is not really viable - I cannot think of a quality full back that has gone to make it as a half back in the modern game. As I repeatedly said I have seen nothing to suggest he would make a half back in a top SL side.

Finally I personally think the gushing praise on Hardaker on here is overstated - he is good but he is no Billy Slater. He could not get the England side for a start which has to tell you something. I think there are 3/4 FBs on a par with him - all have different skills and qualities - the stats support that too - and none are dominant across the whole skill set. That has been my view all the way through.

So unless this board has changed and we must all tow the line then surely posters are entitled to contribute to the argument - the fact it may offend your sensibilities shouldn't really be a consideration.

An interesting stat, true. But the bare fact of the matter is that somebody, whether GB or someone else, [ihad[/i to be the top performer in that category. It's an easy matter then for a poster, journo or whoever to then weave a convincing story as to why that might be. I've no idea whether the theory's right or wrong, have merely flagged this up as an example of stats not necessarily illustrating the point being made while appearing to do so.