: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:11 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

He wasn't though, was he? Not 13 months ago. He was doing well to make it into Bradford's team and, when he could manage to get on the pitch, he was slow, sluggish and generally fairly poor.

16 tries in 17 games including 2 hattricks in his injury ravaged final year, when he was slow sluggish and fairly poor shows the quality of player he was facing

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

16 tries in 17 games including 2 hattricks in his injury ravaged final year, when he was slow sluggish and fairly poor shows the quality of player he was facing

No it doesn't. At a push you could claim it shows the quality of some of his opponents. That's if you're taking a really simplistic view of someone being better than their opposing number if that player manages to score.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:26 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

on the basis he was a better winger than the best british wingers by a country mile

conclusive proof then.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:27 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

16 tries in 17 games including 2 hattricks in his injury ravaged final year, when he was slow sluggish and fairly poor shows the quality of player he was facing

which wingers did he score these hat-tricks against?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:37 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

which wingers did he score these hat-tricks against?

Against Wigan and Quins.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:40 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

No it doesn't. At a push you could claim it shows the quality of some of his opponents. That's if you're taking a really simplistic view of someone being better than their opposing number if that player manages to score.

Or most of the opposition he was facing, considering he scored in 11 of those 17 matches.

But lets compare him to say Gareth Raynor,

LV in his final season when he was slow sluggish and generally poor and played in 8 fewer games than Raynor, Scored more tries, the same amount of assists, more yards per carry, more carries per game, almost identical tackles bust per carry and nearly twice the amount of clean breaks (despite playing nearly a third fewer games)

Admittedly his defence was worse, but a lot of that was down to the fact he was without his regular centre partner for the most part of the year

And Gardner, Played 7 more games the Les, scored 3 fewer tries, made fewer yards per carry, and fewer carries per game, he bust fewer tackles in total and fewer tackles per carry, he missed more tackles and made more errors as well as making fewer clean breaks in total and fewer clean breaks per carry

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:05 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Or most of the opposition he was facing, considering he scored in 11 of those 17 matches.

But lets compare him to say Gareth Raynor,

LV in his final season when he was slow sluggish and generally poor and played in 8 fewer games than Raynor, Scored more tries, the same amount of assists, more yards per carry, more carries per game, almost identical tackles bust per carry and nearly twice the amount of clean breaks (despite playing nearly a third fewer games)

Admittedly his defence was worse, but a lot of that was down to the fact he was without his regular centre partner for the most part of the year

And Gardner, Played 7 more games the Les, scored 3 fewer tries, made fewer yards per carry, and fewer carries per game, he bust fewer tackles in total and fewer tackles per carry, he missed more tackles and made more errors as well as making fewer clean breaks in total and fewer clean breaks per carry

Right. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, but thanks for going to the trouble all the same. You aren't comparing like with like. Firstly, the teams they're playing in and their tactics have a huge bearing on the opportunities each has. For example, the vast majority of Raynor's work comes in his own half, usually in his own 20 and involves scooting and either offloading or getting a quick play. It doesn't often involve being given the ball a couple of yards out and having to batter his way over the line.

I could go on, but I think you get the point: you might as well be comparing a prop and a half for all the similarities in their games. Vainikolo was great for Bradford. He was exactly what they needed to compliment their huge pack that sucked defenders in forcing teams to play narrower against them. Stick him in a Hull team from the past few years, and he wouldn't go as well though. See the 2004 GF for a good example of why. That would be the type of work he would be needed to do all the time, and it's not something he was very good at.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:15 pm  

trys'r'us wrote:

Right. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, but thanks for going to the trouble all the same. You aren't comparing like with like. Firstly, the teams they're playing in and their tactics have a huge bearing on the opportunities each has. For example, the vast majority of Raynor's work comes in his own half, usually in his own 20 and involves scooting and either offloading or getting a quick play. It doesn't often involve being given the ball a couple of yards out and having to batter his way over the line.

you're right, it doesnt, because Raynor isnt very good at this, and if as you say, Les's game is based on battering his way over the line for easy tries and raynors is running the ball out from in the 20 would you expect that Raynor would be taking more drives per game rather than fewer? could it be that there is more to Les's game, and he also frequently ran the ball out from his own twenty, he just made more yards doing it?

I could go on, but I think you get the point: you might as well be comparing a prop and a half for all the similarities in their games. Vainikolo was great for Bradford. He was exactly what they needed to compliment their huge pack that sucked defenders in forcing teams to play narrower against them. Stick him in a Hull team from the past few years, and he wouldn't go as well though. See the 2004 GF for a good example of why. That would be the type of work he would be needed to do all the time, and it's not something he was very good at.

no the 2004 final is a great example of why vainikolo was and still is a better player than Gareth Raynor, Leeds made a plan and needed to stick to it to negate the threat of Les, nobody would have to do that with with raynor because he simply doesnt pose that much of a threat,

and the plan to kick behind Les wasnt to expose how poor he was at returning the ball, it was because he was less of a threat from 90 yards than from 9 yards, and tiring him out in the Bradford 20 made him less explosive when he did get the chance to run it in, Vainikolo was never poor in bringing it ouf his 20

and to pretend Vainikolo and Raynor are as different as a prop and a half is just crazy,

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:19 pm  

SaintMarshy wrote:

I am still amazed at the fact that out of 18 BBC One regional channels only 4 got to watch the Super League Show. In Scotland, the Magic weekend location, it isn't shown. In Wales, home of Celtic Crusaders, it isn't shown. Please don't tell me that the majority of people would rather watch Diagnosis Murder than rugby league. OK tell me.

To be fair to the beeb, they have got a bit better than they used to be - with the advent of iPlayer. I found it going out live on the 'red button' whilst dozing off during Italy v Ireland kick n clap. Strange that it was in the 6 Nations interactive menu?!

Noble's comments are not so much unbelievable, as outright bonkers. I just find myself asking WHY?!!

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:23 pm  

Eurob0y wrote:

Their backs, whilst not world class, are still much better than the english rugby league backs

Pah! Tindall would have to play prop if he switched codes - only he can't bend his back, let alone bloody tackle. Joe Worsley's the closest thing they've got to a decent League player but the idea's a non-starter.

Beginning to think Nobby needs his head examining.