Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 1:00 pm  

ccs wrote:

But what you're really saying is that he should have a backup plan that works - if only it were that easy.

If we can't beat Wakefield with a 12-0 HT lead, when your best player goes off, then you have to question the coaches tactics, especially when he seemed to know that we would struggle if it happened from the London game.

At 16-0 he should have had Houghton and Heremia (At LF) on, and told the players to close the game out with safe disciplined rugby.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 1:06 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

If we can't beat Wakefield with a 12-0 HT lead, when your best player goes off, then you have to question the coaches tactics, especially when he seemed to know that we would struggle if it happened from the London game.

At 16-0 he should have had Houghton and Heremia (At LF) on, and told the players to close the game out with safe disciplined rugby.

Maybe that's what he told them.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 2:02 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

You like me like stats, compare Whting Stats to Tuson and hadley and see who offers more in attack and defence?

Whiting has been messed around this year, he has been moved to Centre and given low minutes off the bench in games.

I think stats can be useful/interesting, but it's important to apply context. As you say, Whiting has played at centre, so I've disregarded those games for comparison. I've not bothered to look at Tuson as I didn't advocate him ahead of Whiting. As said in my post, I'd have gone with Carvell and then Thompson in the back row. So, Whiting v Hadley:

- Hadley has averaged more tackles, but less completion. Makes sense given comparative gametime/workload, about even.
- Whiting has averaged more errors, but this also makes sense because he offloads more. About even again.
- Discipline about level.
- Carrying the ball. This is where Hadley is ahead. He averages more metres per carry, and has made more tackle busts in less games than Whiting.

So based upon stats, I'd say that Hadley looks slightly ahead, which is how I already thought, tbh. I would add 2 further points which I think are pertinent, too. Firstly, Hadley's performances have been improving IMO, so that is further reason to give him the nod currently. Secondly, with the stats being so close, it's easy to forget that we're comparing someone in their first real season to someone in their testimonial year still in their prime years. To me, that says a lot about Whiting's performances if he's about on par (and IMO even below) a rookie.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 2:14 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

... I think stats can be useful/interesting, but it's important to apply context .... To me, that says a lot about Whiting's performances if he's about on par (and IMO even below) a rookie ....

Do you give any credit for Whiting's X factor ? He has the occasional flash of brilliance, whether that's a good interception, ball steal etc. Just a thought.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 2:25 pm  

Largeparts wrote:

Do you give any credit for Whiting's X factor ? He has the occasional flash of brilliance, whether that's a good interception, ball steal etc. Just a thought.

I'll give credit when he does it. IMO, this season, he hasn't in the second row. Correct me with examples, I may have just forgotten.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 2:32 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

I'll give credit when he does it. IMO, this season, he hasn't in the second row. Correct me with examples, I may have just forgotten.

Fair enough, wasn't trying to be clever. I agree he's been quiet this season, bit of a penalty machine too. Hadley is a good prospect but he's what my uncle would call an honest rugby player, by that he generally means a solid drive with not a lot of flair.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 2:47 pm  

Largeparts wrote:

Fair enough, wasn't trying to be clever. I agree he's been quiet this season, bit of a penalty machine too. Hadley is a good prospect but he's what my uncle would call an honest rugby player, by that he generally means a solid drive with not a lot of flair.

The most disappointing part of Whiting's game for me is the amount of silly penalties he gives away. For someone who quite clearly has an excellent rugby brain he doesn't half do some stupid stuff. I think the difference this year is that we've not seen enough of his good side to counteract it yet.

Nothing wrong with that, particularly at this stage of Hadley's career. All teams have some like that in them, and he may well have plenty still to come in his game.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 3:36 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

I think stats can be useful/interesting, but it's important to apply context. As you say, Whiting has played at centre, so I've disregarded those games for comparison. I've not bothered to look at Tuson as I didn't advocate him ahead of Whiting. As said in my post, I'd have gone with Carvell and then Thompson in the back row. So, Whiting v Hadley:

- Hadley has averaged more tackles, but less completion. Makes sense given comparative gametime/workload, about even.
- Whiting has averaged more errors, but this also makes sense because he offloads more. About even again.
- Discipline about level.
- Carrying the ball. This is where Hadley is ahead. He averages more metres per carry, and has made more tackle busts in less games than Whiting.

So based upon stats, I'd say that Hadley looks slightly ahead, which is how I already thought, tbh. I would add 2 further points which I think are pertinent, too. Firstly, Hadley's performances have been improving IMO, so that is further reason to give him the nod currently. Secondly, with the stats being so close, it's easy to forget that we're comparing someone in their first real season to someone in their testimonial year still in their prime years. To me, that says a lot about Whiting's performances if he's about on par (and IMO even below) a rookie.

Also Whiting has scored 4 trys and 2 assists compared to Hadley 1 and 1.

I like Hadley but whiting offers more in attack especially near there line and also in the air. Close decision I agree but against an inexperienced Wigan pack and Hadley just played big minutes 5 days ago o think Radford has made the right decision this week.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 3:54 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

Also Whiting has scored 4 trys and 2 assists compared to Hadley 1 and 1.

But to reiterate about context, 2 of those tries came at centre. So it's 2 of each in 6 games, vs. 1 of each in 4. Whiting has done a little better at those than Hadley, but not that much.

Dave K. wrote:

I like Hadley but whiting offers more in attack especially near there line and also in the air. Close decision I agree but against an inexperienced Wigan pack and Hadley just played big minutes 5 days ago o think Radford has made the right decision this week.

I don't disagree about this week.

Re: Radford Out! : Wed May 07, 2014 5:28 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

Depends how you read stats, really. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say that they 'bossed' ours, I do think their forwards outplayed ours, and the stats pretty much back that up IMO. We might have made more metres in total, but that's because we had more possession. Looking at the 8 'proper' forwards for each side:

They averaged more metres per carry than us.
They made more offloads than us.
They made more tackles than us.
They completed a higher percentage of their tackles than us.
They made the same number of tackle busts as us, off less carries, therefore more than us as an average.
They made less errors than us.

The only area in which we came out better than them was penalties, which actually leans towards 1865's assertion about them piggy-backing us up the field.

And then there's what the stats don't show, and what was IMO the biggest difference between the 2 sides, ptb speed. Their forwards were far better than ours on both sides of this.

I was responding to the claim that 'our forwards got bossed all game' which the stats clearly show is not correct. And we got one more penalty that they did so the difference in 'piggy backing' was totally negligible. Being 16-0 down after 55 minutes I don't think their forwards had done any better than ours unless they had dominated and were incredibly unlucky to have been caught on the break three times - which of course hadn't happened.