The only one that could come close to what you need is this one.



Anyway we're taking away from all the hard work that TVOC has put into a serious thread about stats. Time to move on.

Don't fret, grammar police and stats should go hand in hand anyway.





Quite so (although in essence Hall just ran straight for the score), which only adds to the confusion surrounding OPTA's criteria for awarding try assists generally.

In that same game Jones-Buchanan broke clear, dummied to beat a man before handing onto Webb but presumably because Webb stepped the last defender JJB was denied an assist. Compare that to Burrow for Sinfield's score at the KC which was credited with an assist to Burrow.



Another quirk is that it appears every kick that results in a try is automatically awarded an assist. Even when the kicker and the try scorer is the same person as was the case with Ryan Hall in the away fixture with Les Catalans this season.

Having looked at the stats for the Hull game compared with the others quoted by TVOC I'm at a loss to explain the following.

Metres gained were by far the lowest at 1059 (140 lower than next lowest and 440 lower than the highest)

Carries were by far the lowest at 157 (11 lower than next lowest and 102 lower than the highest)

Tackles Attempted (Hits and misses) were second lowest at 273 (18 more than lowest and 78 lower than the highest)

Given the first and second items (Carries per metre were around the average for the 6 weeks) I would have expected the tackles to be a lot higher. I only saw the first half as I was travelling but I can only assumethe ball was "out of play" for a lot of the time or that the PTB was significantly slower. Any observations.

I don't know how they include kicks in the metres made, but could Sinfield's kick have made a difference. Also, I have recollections of Hull coughing up the ball and us capitalising on the mistakes, which meant a lot of "free" metres compared to normal.

Also, compared to other games there were a lot more points scored, so the time taken up with the extra conversions will have eaten up the clock.

That would be my best guess and it being a hot day (earlier kick off) I don't think either team or the referee were rushing to get the game restarted at stoppages.

The other games had 5,8,2,5 & 8 tries (7 in this game) so no real difference there apart from the 2 (There were also 2 penalties scored by Leeds which would have taken time)

Also having thought about penalties there were only 6 by Leeds in this game which is less than usual.

I'd hate to think that opta are provoding incorrect stats for us to base our opinions upon.

7 by Leeds, but also 5 by Hull, is what I was thinking.

Hull (H) 8 + 3 = 11
Catalans (A) 5 + 5 = 10
Huddersfield (H) 3 + 2 = 5
Harlequins (A) 8 + 3 = 11
Bradford (H) 5 + 3 = 8
Hull (A) 7 + 5 = 12

TVOC quoted the penalties as being correct at 6 apiece and whilst I wouldn't trust opta I respect his ability to count.

His Lordship was counting tries there rather than penalties.

Indeed I was. I'm not saying that was definitely the reason, merely suggesting a theory.

Oops. Could be a contributing factor. The reason i compared the figures was to see if I could see a pattern of the intensity increasing as Leeds seemed to have upped their game a bit recently. I was surprised to see the stats drop off in all areas quoted.

You can have the selected stats from every Leeds SL Regular Round game of the season if you'd like, just give me the nod and I'll put them up.

Thinking about it though the Easter games were averaged as the SL website was updated on block, that apart they're good to go.

I think the main reason was the penalties awarded and tries scored. I must admit, like you those stats suprised me.

However, in the first half we were for the majority in Hulls half, due to higher than normal penalties for a 1st half. Therefore the harder yardage did not have to be made, and we excuted the opportunities quite brilliantly.

In the second half it was all change. Hull got the penalties and kind of mirrored what we did in the first half. We struggled to get anywhere and often dropped the ball in own half too.

I think that would explain the lower meters gained. Although in truth I still dont think the figures are correct.

Does a penalty kicked into touch count as metres gained? I know you've done it the easy way, but the team who conceeded the penalty were at fault, not you. Also, you've got to make sure you find touch with the kick, otherwise you're advantage has gone.

What do you think they should be then?

In the absence of someone counting or verifying what OPTA are employed to do it's all we have got to go on I'm afraid.

I know, and I am not doubting you on it. But like finglas I was somewhat suprised to see how low the meters were, as I said on the first page.

I have however only watched the match once, and my recolection of the runs might not be correct.

As it is though, I can only recall Sinfields try that came from any distance, which might add to the low meters argument.

Sorry, just belatedly noticed this comment.

I assume kick distance isn't any part of the 'metres made' stats at all.

The metres made total equals the total of the individual players metres made and it's clear to see from those of Burrow, McGuire and Sinfield that they don't include kick distances.

In that case, I can understand why the figures at Hull were down on normal. As well as the 40/20 we had a few free metres off Hull due to handling errors, good old JT being the most obvious example.