Not sure you're right on that one

Don`t worry,you will change your mind when he pulls that red and white shirt on.

When did I write that?

might be a bit long in the tooth but

2009 - 7th most tackles in sl
2008 - 5th most tackles in sl
2007 - 17th most tackles in sl
2006 - 16th most tackles in sl
2005 - 14th most tackles in sl

worst case scenario he's gonna put a big shift in in defense!!!

Yes but dont forget 08/09 seasons they were down at the bottom end - thus defending i lot more then most teams.

But based on your "we will make him better" argument,won`t the same magic work with Radford?

The impressive thing about Radders was never the number of tackles he made, it's his tackle completion rate. I remember reading one year he completed 97% of the tackles he went in for compated to 85% of his nearest rival. Saved the other defenders a huge amount of work. It has also been fedback to him that he hurts people when he tackles them. Stats dont quantify the amount it takes out of the opposition.

Stats don't quantify anything. I'm amazed anyone takes them seriously.

Actually, stats do quantify... full stop. The interpretation of the stats is what can be debated.

yet 53% of people do

Depends which stats you use. The ones on the SL site or a clubs internal stats that take into account tackle losses, tackle dominance, speed of the ptb etc.

Certainly one of those stats' criteria DON'T quantify......full stop.

You do realise quantify simply means to add up? All stats that exist are simply variables added up therefore quantified. If someone adds up the works out an average time of each ptb it will have been quantified.

Interpretation as i said is the real ambiguous area.