Can we keep the Lee Smith stuff to just one thread?! I'm getting sick of re-typing it in different places.

In this particular instance, I'm just saying that stats are interpretable. I'm pretty sure you, of all people, don't need telling that. The "tackle" stat in particular. Malcolm Alker gets a lot of praise from the Sky boys about being constantly in the top tacklers lists, but I'd suggest that it isn't really worthy of praise given the amount of defending Salford are expected to do.




And it was 2009.

I think it's still worthy of praise, in context, given he usually couples quantity with quality. Both the top tacklers in 2010 (Dallas Johnson and Alker) recorded 97% in tackle effectivenes (misses/(tackles+misses)) Sky will have to find someone else to talk about in 2011.

Looking down the top tacklers from 2010:

Dallas Johnson - 97%
Malcolm Alker - 97%
Heath L'Estrange - 92%
Luke Swain - 95%
Danny Houghton - 97%
Lincoln Withers - 94%

From a Leeds' forward perspective in 2010:

The range was from

Sinfield, Pitts - 96%
Bailey, Burgess, Clarkson, Peacock - 95%

To

McShane, Eastwood - 89%

Yup. I know.

It is.

In his stint he seemed to really struggle getting back in the line, but you can't argue with that.

Coupling quantity with quality is worthy of praise more sure. But he's only able to get the quantity because his team was constantly having to defend.

It's like a new car company saying "99% of our cars are repairable in under 1 hour!". It looks an impressive stat but the car manufacturer down the road might engineer the cars not to break down in the first place.

Not sure where this idea that any one team makes considerably more tackles than any other comes from. Of course there is a range and yes it has to be factored in but does it dilute tackle effectiveness when viewed as a % over 28 weekly rounds?

In 2010 Salford made the most completed tackles. (I can't comment on absolute tackle numbers as the reported team missed tackle stat is less than useless and I'm not identifying every squad member for every team and adding them together to get to an accurate figure, not today at any rate.)

The completed tackle figure for Salford in 2010 was (when rounded) between 1 and 13% greater than the other SL sides.

1% - Huddersfield
2% - Les Catalans
3% - Harlequins, Hull KR
4% - Crusaders
6% - Hull
7% - Wakefield
9% - Bradford
10% - Leeds, Wigan
11% - Castleford
12% - Warrington
13% - St Helens

I suspect Malcolm Alker would still figure highly even if he had played in a team that found themselves towards the bottom of that list.

Yardage (or metreage) from Pitts and Kirke is poor for forwards. Also Senior. If he's only making those kind of yards he won't fare as well in the forwards as you may think.

Come on TVOC you're an intelligent man?! Surely you're not trying to suggest I'm being stupid by suggesting that the "Top Tackler" award isn't something that you really want to be winning??

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest (as I did) that the "weaker" teams are likely to have made more tackles, given that they will have less possession, and therefore are likely to be defending more, meaning they're more likely to have a "Top Tackler".

All I was saying is the Sky boys saying stuff like... "Alker really is one of the top tacklers in the game!" in the positive tone and manor that they do isn't right. He's only the "Top Tackler" because his team are getting caned every week so he's having to put the tackles in. I'm positive he'd have rather played for Wigan and spent more time with the ball in his hands.

Maybe TVOC could routinely convert Kirke's metres into centimetres? It might sound less depressing.

Aw!!

Why wouldn't you want the top tackler in SL in your team even using quantity alone to define it? That player would be one of the first names on my team-sheet.

What I'm suggesting is that Alker would still be one of the top tacklers in the game regardless of the team he plays/played for (which I understood your position to be re Salford) because 1) he played a high percentage of games 2) he played long minutes each week 3) he played in the middle of the park and 4) he was a very good defender.

Whether Salford were called on to make what (in percentage terms) may have been slightly more tackles on average in any given season doesn't detract from the other factors listed above.

Good to see the stats thanks again.

I'm not say you "wouldn't want the top tackler", meaning if one of your plays WAS the top tackler you'd actively seek to get rid of him. I'm just suggesting that perhaps most people would rather win the league than have the top tackler.

1. Dallas Johnson - Catalans 1106
2. Malcolm Alker - Salford 964
3. Heath L'Estrange - Bradford 944
4. Luke Swain - Salford 910
5. Danny Houghton - Hull 843
6. Lincoln Withers - Crusaders 834
7. Craig Fitzgibbon - Hull 829
8. Rhys Lovegrove - Hull Kingston Rovers 787
9. Sean O'Loughlin - =#FF0040Wigan 783
10. Ryan Hudson - Castleford 773

Top ten tacklers contains one member of what are considered "the best 4 teams in the league" and even he came 9th. Really can't see why you're arguing with me on this TVOC, surely you get my point?

Who's arguing?

I'm appreciating the defensive attributes of a player and don't believe it's perverse in any way for Sky, Opta, Man Of Steel or whoever to celebrate the achievement. One for the unsung heroes.

Fair enough.

I just personally don't think it's especially "heroic" to be circumstantially an 80 minute player in the middle of the park for a team who's often on the losing side of the possession stat.

It's the equivalent of giving an award to the goalkeeper who picks the ball out of the back of his own net the most times.

Sarky git!

The Delaney stats are very impressive indeed, especially when compared to Keef's.

Isn't it gratifying for those of us who are not blinded by the bling of past Championship Rings, and judge purely on current form, should be seen to be on the right track so early in the season?........

Perhaps the way that the award is calculated should also take into account completion rate, so that skill is being rewarded as well as hard work?

Now you see this is where we differ as being a durable, eighty minute player, working your nuts off and doing so effectively in arguably one of the toughest sports on the planet is worthy of recognition.

I'd equally if not rather that was celebrated than some 'touch judge on steroids' type wingman who gets to put the ball over the line 30+ times a season. Afterall he only gets to do that off the back of the work done by the likes of a Malcolm Alker or whoever grafting away in the middle.

The anology between a rugby league hooker and a goal-keeper is perhaps not the best.

The analogy was c[ir[/iap. I'll concede that.

Funnily enough I tend to agree with the winger thing too. By that I mean the guy that "happens to plonk the ball down at the end of a team move" becomes the hero with 30+ tries.

Really, what we're both saying is you'd have to analysis the hell out of every "stat" in order to determine its accuracy. But then you'd be onto personal opinion and that is a different route entirely. You couldn't say... "Ryan Hall scored 31 tries but 12 of them were stroll-ins so the stat is 19" or "Malcolm Alker made 1000 tackles but 300 of them the player just ran straight at him so we're calling it 700".

Stats are really only there for guidance and take them with a pinch of salt.

Amen. Welcome to the annual disclaimer on page one.

What those 'tards who can't be bothered thinking about the game for themselves and need to say 'X is good/awful because of this stat and that stat'

You know who you are.

Even if the player ran straight at him he still had to make the tackle ffs. Give the guy some credit, he did it year in year out

4 carries from Kirke.

Awesome. What a softcock.

And with Bailey not recovering in time and Cross being taken Ill yesterday we will have more of this to look forward to tonight.

I'd rather take them on with 16 players. We'd not notice the difference.