You know what, that's a fair point.

You could also argue though that somebody making 40 tackles as opposed to 20 would by definition probably more tired than the other. And therefore you leave yourself open for misses. Not that I am saying that was the case.

But you also need to take into account that if you take that player out making the 40 tackles, would the person put in their instead have been as effective?

Personally speaking I'd disagree with the mark and comments regarding Peacock.

He is way and above our best metre maker in the forwards and that was from the bench.

I agree he doesn't generate fast play the balls,but he never has so that is not a decline in his game and regarding his metres made he is usually our highest in the forwards and quite often he is the only forward contributing significantly in that stat.

I would also add, that on the defense view, and that tackling should be a given.

Only 4 times as a Leeds player topped 40 tackles in a game this season. It won't be a surprise that Sinfield is 3 times of that 4.

In addition above that 4 topping 40, only 8 times as someone topped 30 tackles, but below 40. Again it won't be a surprise that Sinfield is 4 times out of that.

Therefore Sinfield has topped 30 tackles per game 7 times this season with 3 topping 40. He's played in 7 games plus the WCC.

If it's that easy I just wonder why his team mates are not quite as capable? I should add, not that I think anybody on this thread is questioning Sinfields tackling ability.

You could also use those stats to highlight how much opposition teams target him thus hopefully reducing his influence in attack!
I think you have a point re-his defence and score this week mate but i'm with David on this one he needed to stamp some authority on his team and this week it just didn't happen for a number of reasons but we move on and i'm sure it will be put right this week.

As Leicester made reference too IMO position also has a lot to do with number of tackles made, Hooker and Loose normally spend a lot of time defending in the middle of the park where most of the traffic is so just by that they should be expected to make more tackles than most players plus the fact that Sinfield will play 80mins unlike 90% of the other forwards he will always have plenty of tackles to make.

I think thats why so many people get so excited about Alkers tackle stats, he does 80mins in the middle of the park in a team that have to do a lot of defending every week, I think he's a good tackler by the way.

Agree entirely, which is why I placed more emphasis on his defense this week rather than attack. I accepted his attack was poor, but felt the defense made up for it.




Agree again on needing to stamp authority. A negative I accept.

My argument is he was superior to others defensively. Therefore on a scoring basis he would have been marked higher. His attack would reduce that marking, as we all agree. But considering his defense would have given an initial higher mark than others, was he any worse in attack to then go behind these other players overall?

I think the point is fare. But I again refer you to my post at the top of this page.

If what you say is a given, then why did no other Leeds player whilst Sinfield was not in the team, not get anywhere near Sinfields usual tackling stats? This despite Leeds having to do more defence (from the stats) than they do when Sinfield is playing.

My opinion is that on Saturday, had Sinfield not been in there, then Saints would have had even more try scoring opportunities than they did.

Fair point mate but it just wasn't his attack that was a let down was it?
I think the way he is held in such high esteem(rightly imo) has played a part in this low mark because other than defence he dropped way below his usual top class standards with the ball and in his captaincy role. Which IMO is partly why he's highlighted for special praise as our leader and in this case it has worked against him for not leading in his usual way.

You see this is where i disagree. Sinfield always stamps his authority on the team either through his attacking flair or via his defence when things are not going so well.

I think the role of a captain is to lead by example. he can not and should not be spending time during a game goingn around and having a word with all of the players about their discipline.

The coach is the one who is responsible for this. The captain is a leader on the pitch, not another coach.

Like any ball player he needs a platform. Last Saturday the platform was simply not there.

Sinfield got his head down and did the dirty work the others did not manage to do.

One comment i would have would be Ambler 4 and Bush 5. Same sort of description but both as terrible as each other. 4 for Both from me.

Hall made a couple of costly errors, but scored a try and should have had another but for JJB. i think he deserved a higher mark than Bush.

I thought Kylie was our main go forward man this week and would have swapped his mark with Kirke's.

A great read and always a good thread afterwards. keep it up.

So when the referee tells the captain to have a word with his team to prevent a potential binning he should tell him that's not his job?
What nonsense.
Being serious, the captain is the coach's representative on the pitch so it is one of his roles to talk to the other players, gee them up, calm them down etc whatever the game situation requires.
That is precisely what you see Sinfield doing for instance in the huddle after we've conceded a try.

How many times do you see a captain actually turn round and repeat to his team what the ref has just said? i'll answer that perhaps 1 out of 10.

It is his job but it just does not happen. That's why i think Sinfield should not be marked down on this basis.

There is a time for geeing up and calming down - perhaps at a break in play or after a try. Not when the opposition are about to tap a penalty and run at you.

How do we know that in the huddle Sinfield did not play holy hell with the team about their discipline?

All this coach's representative is nonsense.

Sorry i didn't manage to get back to you. I did some work instead.

Still, I note you're still struggling to get Lawrie to agree that he agrees with you. Isn't that a disagreement?

You're "loony" Gotcha. Just "loony".

WTF is lawrie on about?