depends on what is classed as a missed tackle, and the outcome of the miss. if all these misses lead to breaks/big meters gained/quick play the balls/etc, then yes it is a problem.
however it wouldn't surprise me to see that half these missed tackles where actually whilst someone was running across the line, and that the miss was more a missed opportunity or someone laying a hand on the attacker but not finishing the tackle. thus the misses cause no harm to the defence, if anything can lead to the attacker losing ground

how is efficiency measured and why is Donalds so low?

Successful tackles divided by total amount of tackles attempted X 100.

In Donald's case: 4/7=0.57 X 100= 57%.

His are low because he attempted a total of 7 tackles and completed 4, which is just over 50%.

The tackle efficency is the percentage of successful tackles made when assessed against the total tackles attempted (ie tackles + missed tackles)

Therefore in Donald's case this week:

4 tackles + 3 missed tackles = 7 attempted tackles

4 tackles / 7 attempted tackles = 57%

Edit: Take your pick of the two explanations.

Ah right. He's a softcock. Got it.

Spin it whichever way you like, a missed tackle is an opportunity to put the ball carrier to ground and prevent them from scoring on that particular play.

There is no such thing as a good missed tackle.

Assuming these stats are accurate which the statistician who repeats them each week confirms they are not.

He get's a softcock near your wife.

This does not constitute a wife

While I openly doubt there verasity there is no question that Donald missed at least one tackle (possibly two) in the Stefan Latchford try.

Kylie misses a tackle in the receeding ptb to Salford's 1st try. JP bets brushed off for the try.

Are they softcocks?

Ablett misses Wilshire on his try, and misses one in the preceeding play.

Is he a softcock?

Not a term I have ever used to describe a rugby player.

How about yourself?

Donald missed one (possibly two) tackles for the Stefan Latchford try. In total (according to OPTA - not me) he missed three.

Not unless it was merited, which it isn't here.

Aim your reply in that direction then if you feel that strongly about it.

I've never considered it merited and I can remember a young Paul Cook and Francis Cummins as a wing pairing at Headingley.

You cannot educate pork. there are some on here so obviously beneath me that they do not merit direct conversation with me. I like to use an intermediary. Consider yourself used.

I've seen Loz play rugby.

Harsh

Were the last two words entirely accurate or neccessary.

Is he the Chinese cousin of the former Everton centre forward Bob Latchford?

christ you are old

Not my favourite sport but I do remember the bearded one.

As someone who works with stats I've been impressed with tvoc's work this year.

I'd be even more impressed if he managed to bring in significance testing and multivariate methods to definitively prove if Graham is better than Peacock etc

One of my main objectives here is to encourage people to question the validity of the OPTA figures rather than just accepting them at face value without the means to qualify them. Unfortunately my interest in them doesn't go any deeper than that really.

they may have been somewhat fatigued from all the work they did, which looking at the stats looks considerably more than the sheeps messiah.

I think that most thinking RL supporters recognise that even if the stats were perfectly compiled, they'd only give a suggestion of what happens during a game. As it is there's usually some glaring errors, so you always have to remember that the stats are liable to error.

Try assists in RL are often impossible to quantify IMO. It usually seems to be given to the guy who put the last pass in before the touchdown, but often in RL the most important moment in a move could have been 5 or 6 passes back.

Sometimes awful play just isn't reflected in the stats. In the Saints game I don't think Flannery's try would have showed up in our stats at all. There was no missed tackle and no line break. I think the Leeds coaching staff however would've put a couple of black marks next to Ryan Bailey's name because he cost a try because he was having a kip instead of covering the attack.

The fact that Keith and Leon Pryce's sin-binning's weren't recorded just shows how lax the stat keepers are sometimes. It wasn't like they were hidden incidents that someone could miss. There were probably the two clearest incidents in the 80 minutes. How they missed those is baffling.

Yes, but some of us look at the games and not just the stats.

The game wasn't on Sky so you're hardly in a position to comment.