You ALSO called them low impact- just pointing out that statistically, that Klemmer in the least has as much impact in most catagories as the guy nearly to a man on this board is suggested as our saviour.
But- if you want a team that Twal, Klemmer & Seyfarth could in theory put enough numbers together to crack the top 17..
SOO Forward (Starter)
24 Games
4 tackle breaks
501 PCM
3 offloads
94.9% tackle efficiency
72 run metres per game
Bench Forward (Highly wanted on this message board)
23 games
36 tackle breaks
635 PCM
4 offloads
96.3% tackle efficiency
80 run metres per game
Starting Prop
22 games
17 tackle breaks
873.1 PCM
0 Offloads
95.7% tackle efficiency
102 run metres per game
Bench Prop
9 games
16 tackle breaks
328.5 PCM
3 offloads
89.8% tackle efficiency
101 run metres per game
Bench Middle
22 games
23 tackle breaks
735.9 PCM
12 offloads
88.9% tackle efficiency
112 run metres per game
Bench backrower
21 games
34 tackle breaks
635 PCM
3 offloads
86.8% tackle efficiency
81 run metres per game
I give you- Manly
Jake T
Ethan Bullemoor
Joah Aliaoi
Matt Lodge
Nathan Brown
Ben T
For comparison-
Twal
18 Games
28 tackle breaks
565 PCM
6 offloads
97.2% tackle efficiency
80 run metres per game
Seyfarth
23 games
21 tackle breaks
701.8 PCM
16 offloads
94.5% tackle efficiency
75 run metres per game
I'd say our 1 dimensional low impact plodders at the very least hold up to the forwards that finals playing Manly put on the field.
Before you rant that neither Klemmer, Twal or Seyfarth are exceedingly better than these Manly forwards- my point is they are not worse either.
I could have given the Storm numbers, Dolphins numbers...even the Sharks to a degree. Canterbury.
Klemmer, Twal & Seyfarth are not the problem. In fact, in a poor overall defensive team, it can be argued all 3 need to be on the field more.
Our issue (IMO) is that we have started our sets of six too far in our territory for any of our forwards to ever exceed in impact plays. Our return on metres from tackles 1 & 2, from our outside backs, are some of the worst numbers in the NRL. Hopefully Turuva & Skelton can help with that.
We have all the impact we need from Pole, Hunt & Sione Fainu.
Great work of late with some context around these stats mate.
I will add that there are intangibles around the pack, particularly in the middle, that are hard to quantify, but which have a massive bearing on the current game.
Most of it centres around the ruck, but elements such as strength of first-up contact, ability to hold the player up before bringing to ground, ability to prevent offloads and the likelihood of whether a player will be able to win the wrestle enough to a) get to marker effectively and b) allow their own line to be set.... are all pivotal and hard to quantify.
I think that the last few years, this year especially, our control of the ruck (and those intangibles above), have contributed HEAVILY to our issues with the pack, rather than statistical output alone. I'd include line speed in D (or lack thereof) as another glaring shortfall; again, hard to quantify.
Alluding to what I've mentioned already, you could perhaps metricise some of those with stats such as opposition set distances, PCMs or offloads I guess, though they don't often tell the entire story.
I think it's both at the end of the day.
That is; we need to improve the pack with a bit more 'quality' AND, we need to (badly) improve our control of contact and the ruck, which you can tie line speed into as well.
If we slowed the ruck down by half a second on average, limited opposition's set distances by 3-5m on average and increased our line speed by a couple of metres (till contact) on average, then I think the output of our forwards, exactly as you've presented them so well, would prove to be far more beneficial than they have thus far.
