Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:55 am  

No real wish to take sides in this argument but as a general point, Sinfield seems to make 2 or 3 tackles in many games that snuff out some very threatening situations, largely through his having read the play while others haven't. That, to me at least, is what I'd wish to see from a HB rather than a tackle count up in high teens. Most tackles by half backs lack the impact to really hurt (or, more accurately, hurt the ball carrier) so I'd actually prefer others to be taking up more of the work load.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:16 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

I've listed them before but here goes

2014 = 25.4 tackles per match (league games only btw)
2013 = 25.9
2012 = 19.3
2011 = 19.4
Then last two years at Loose Forward
2010 = 27.9
2009 = 31.5

Even though he's still at starting HB he's upped his numbers back up to around 25 the last two seasons, which is closer to his numbers when he played loose.......if he's really 'demanding' to play in the halves to lessen his tackling workload then he's not doing a very good job of hiding himself in the defensive line.

It can readily be argued from the figures that Sinfield's move has proved beneficial in securing a significantly reduced defensive workload and one which is perhaps even greater than the one shown above given the true make-up of the 2010 figure. Anyone can see the switch from loose to half-back taking place during that 2010 season and the figures need reflect the true counts if wishing to make a credible comparison.

The upshot then in 2013, 2014 (IMO) is in the main attributable to one thing - McDermott's use of Burrow as a starting hooker.

The figures Sinfield recorded during 2010 (when starting half-back) 2011 and 2012 are not much more than half of those he recorded as starting loose forward in 2010.

Whether it is BS or not for fans to suggest Sinfield was looking for less defensive duties to prolong his useful career at Leeds, they are only repeating what I thought the great man was saying himself at the time.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:08 pm  

tvoc wrote:

The upshot then in 2013, 2014 (IMO) is in the main attributable to one thing - McDermott's use of Burrow as a starting hooker.

So who do you reckon was the starting hooker in 2012 then?

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:52 pm  

The starting hooker over the 27 Regular Rounds of 2012 (assuming those average tackle counts exclude the other 10 games) were Burrow 14, Lunt 9, McShane 3 and Hood 1. After Lunt's arrival he started more games at hooker than Burrow and contributed an average 22 tackles per game.

What was Sinfield's average tackle count (according to OPTA) when starting at loose forward in 2010 ? How does that figure compare to the same as one of the starting half-backs in 2010 and those he averagesd from the same in 2011 and 2012?

According to your/OPTA figures the answer is a significant drop from what he was doing defensively at the time of making the switch away from loose forward.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:35 pm  

Who gives a f*** how many tackles a half back makes? All I would be interested in is is he a defensive "hole" or is he solid when needed. I want half backs creating and scoring tries, kicking the opposition to death and getting the forwards organised.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:56 pm  

DHM wrote:

Who gives a f*** how many tackles a half back makes? All I would be interested in is is he a defensive "hole" or is he solid when needed. I want half backs creating and scoring tries, kicking the opposition to death and getting the forwards organised.

Got to agree with this. Like you say, as long as he isn't a turnstyle, (which Sinfield certainly isn't infact i believe he is one of the better defensive halfbacks) then no problem for me.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:49 am  

tvoc wrote:

The starting hooker over the 27 Regular Rounds of 2012 (assuming those average tackle counts exclude the other 10 games) were Burrow 14, Lunt 9, McShane 3 and Hood 1. After Lunt's arrival he started more games at hooker than Burrow and contributed an average 22 tackles per game.

How many of those games did Lunt get picked to start ahead of Burrow with the latter on the bench? Just the 3. Lunt's other starts came from either Burrow being missing or McGuire being absent and Burrow moving to the halves. How many minutes did Lunt get at home vs St Helens off the bench? ZERO. How many minutes did he get vs Wakey in the playoffs? Just the final 10. Burrow was very very clearly the starting hooker back in 2012. Lunt's average of 22 sounds good.....Aiton's average of 32 last year sounds better. So more tackles from a 'proper' hooker yet Sinfield's number still rose considerably.

The rise isn't down to Burrow and his role at hooker......it's down to Watkins. First half of 2012 up to and including those hammerings to Wigan (8-50) and Wire (18-37)

Watkins - 23.2 average tackles per game
Sinfield - 18.9

After that (which saw our form turn around)
Watkins - 15.2
Sinfield - 20.1

Last year I've already mentioned Sinfield's 25 tackle average......Watkins just 17.8

So far this year, Watkins had made 25, Sinfield 42.

Sinfield's numbers have risen because he's moved to the other side of Watkins to be further infield instead of the previous normal halfback role of being between centre and winger in the defensive.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:59 am  

DHM wrote:

Who gives a f*** how many tackles a half back makes? All I would be interested in is is he a defensive "hole" or is he solid when needed. I want half backs creating and scoring tries, kicking the opposition to death and getting the forwards organised.

I want halfbacks to be doing that too and to help that be possible you want your halfback saving his energy for attack and not being overworked in defence.

Take for example this weeks contest. Sinfield in the last few years averages 25 tackles a game......Danny Brough less than 15. Would Brough and Hudds have won the MOS and LLS had he been doing 10 more tackles further infield against bigger guys?

2015 tackles so far
Sinfield - 42......Watkins - 25
Brough - 29.......Cudjoe - 68...Wardle - 44 (I believe Brough defends on Cudjoe's side but not sure)

That's why how much tackling our halfback is doing relevant.

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:25 am  

So Brough has done less tackling yet the Giants have lost both games - are you sure your theory really stacks up? Myler has done loads of tackling and Wire have won both their games

Re: For all the criticism of our half backs... : Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:24 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So Brough has done less tackling yet the Giants have lost both games - are you sure your theory really stacks up? Myler has done loads of tackling and Wire have won both their games

if you think 1 stat isolated is the only thing to influence a result then you have less intelligence than I credited you with.