That was an outlier. Compare it to the Roosters where he has returned results similar or better on a number of seasons.
I also said he has been more resilient…playing a large section of each season. You could argue that’s because he started ballplaying more than he was and thus received less injuries…..long bow but all indicators are there.
I don't think it is so much an outlier (yes, it was a little bit statistically) but for mine it is more of an indication he has always had it in him. His last 2 years are statistically pretty similar when factoring for games played as his first 2 year at Roosters (both premiership years as well so arguably more attacking chances).
15. 17 from 24 games (.71)
16. 10 from 17 games (.59)
17. 10 from 21 games (.48)
18. 13 from 25 games (.52)
19. 13 from 24 games (.54)
Yes, Numbers increase greatly for him in the following years at Roosters. But attacking stats increased greatly across the board with the introduction of the 6 again rule. How much can we put down this jump in attacking stats to Tedesco improving his ball playing compared to simply being a good ball player in a dominant side in a competition that has been changed and heavily skewed towards attack and heavily favouring dominant teams?
We will never truly know the answer but for mine the numbers he put up in a struggling team suggests he was already a very good ball player before arriving at the Roosters.
Having said that I do believe little aspects of his game improved. As I mentioned earlier he was taught how to set a defensive line. Repeat efforts which would indicate improved fitness. You've mentioned resilience. How much is specialist coaching, how much is the professionalism of the environment and how much is it the professional of the Individual naturally improving with maturity?
