An interesting stat

[Hurriflatch]

I know people don't like blaming injuries but a very interesting read in the BL this week

They had a look at each teams top 17 in 2003 and how many games they played. Bit boring to go through all so just taking last years premiers, runners up and Parra

Panthers
Total: 459 games
Played: 409
89.1% of games with top 17 (1st in NRL)

Roosters
Total: 459
Played: 357
80.6% (5th)

Eels
Total: 408
Played: 259
63.5% (15th in NRL)

 

[strider]

People can ramble on till the cows come home about not blaming injuries for poor results, but in my opinion they are a HUGE factor.

2001: we had virtually no injuries, we over achieved. Since then we have been ravaged by injuries and I think it has played a big part in knocking our confidence down.

2003: the Panthers came from several injury ravaged seasons where they finished with the wooden spoon once and 3rd last in 2002 - they then had their top team together for a very long period, virtually no injuries the last 16 weeks of the comp and they took out the premiership.


Avoid injury talk all you like, but I believe the facts are clear.....I am not saying it is our only problem, but its been a very big problem.

 

[Suitman]

I don't think you'd find any of the smart or honest people denying that fact.
All the others just ignore it.
But, as you said, it isn't the only problem.

Suity

 

[Parraren]

Very true strider.

I knew we were really going to struggle when we lost Vaealiki then Cayless one week after the other. Our top 17 at the start of the year looked OK on paper but take Lyon, Cannings, Vaealiki & Cayless out (and now Grothe) and we really start to look very ordinary.

But as you said Strider, you can't blame it all on injuries because we had our top 17 ("best frock on" as Smith likes to call it :roll: :lol: ) in round 1 and we still got lapped by the Bulldogs :?

 

[Suitman]

As you said Parraren, Round 1 was probably our strongest team possible, yet we didn't get "lapped", we got our arses well and truely kicked.

That is just a bad, bad memory.

Not much has changed really. Still getting our arses kicked, and where are we?????

Round 12??

Not a lot to get excited about really, is there?

Suity

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

On top of that look at the Roosters in 2002. Started poorly because of massive injury toll, but come Round 19 when they all started coming back the Roosters kicked and went on to win the Big One.

Last year, Burt, Hindmarsh and Cayless played a combined 20-something games between them out of a possible 72. That's 25% of your salary cap playing less than a third of your season. How we came 9th is a surprise to me sometimes.

 

[AlexTheEel]

And surprise surprise, once Hindy and Cayless came back we start stringing some wins together and playing some decent footy.

 

[GAME FIRST]

Alex you are easily pleased!
When Hindi and Caylo played v DOGS 1st rd-what happen??????

Its a lot deeper than that mate!

Anyway take Hindi out of our pack and we have a reserve grade one!!!!!!agree?

Besides, when other teams like the roosters lose Fitz this year for 6-7 weeks and last year for longer- did they go backwards and play embarressingly????no they adjusted and got on with the job --we tried to buy bigger forwards this year and we lose a few and that gives us the right to look second rate and make excuses for our coach---WE BOUGHT RESERVE GRADERS AND ARE SEEING IT NOW!!!!hello hello

 

[GAME FIRST]

and you hollywood are way too easily pleased-we are playing pathetic for other reasons than injuries--admit this and then see the light!!
Also trying to rely on stats and science to explain our such bad performances is looking at the after affects and not the cause!!!

We played poorly in the GB IN 2001- WITH A FULL TEAM- ever since we have been so poor no stats are going to hide for me that Smithy has no more to give and is running on empty for a while now!!!!!!!!

 

[Eelectrica]

Our most recent run of thrashings has certainly coincided with the loss of Cayless.
Some of the replacements whilst not expected too completely fill the gap left by Cayless should be filling the gap a lot better than they have.

 

[Eels Dude]

Having injuries is just providing us with an excuse at the moment. I think if we had our full side fit we'd still be struggling to win games with the way some players are performing. Injuries don't help, but they aren't the problem.

 

[Suitman]

Last year, Burt, Hindmarsh and Cayless played a combined 20-something games between them out of a possible 72. That's 25% of your salary cap playing less than a third of your season. How we came 9th is a surprise to me sometimes.

You know what really concerns me about that statement?
That we are paying Burt, Cayless and Hindmarsh one quarter of our salary cap, (3 PLAYERS) when it has to be spread between 26 players.

HJ, if those stats are correct, that is a disgrace to who ever controls what we spend on players.
And we all know who that is.....Denis tolds us so last weekend.

Suity

 

[Eels Dude]

I don't think it's too alarming. Cayless and Hindmarsh are probably are two best players, and are probably on around 350K each maybe? I think you'll find the same at any club.

 

[strider]

I don't believe HJ's quote is correct.....the concept is right, we had our top players (probably 25% of the cap) out for extended periods in 2002 and 2003.

Hindy - missed at least half the season.
Caylo - broke his arm
Vella - has had an ever ending stream of injuries
Lyon - missed a huge chunk of 2002
Burt - missed a large portion of last season when he was in great form at the start of the year.


They are 5 players - 1/5 of our 25 man squad that are probably taking up 1/4 of our salary cap....I don't think that is an alarming thing - alot of teams would probably have their top 5 players taking up 1/4 or more of their cap....25% of $3.25m is only $812,500....isn't Joey on that all by himself at Newcastle? ;-)

 

[Suitman]

Fair enough.

I think that I was just a bit concerned that Burt takes up a third of the 25%.

Disconcerting really.

Suity

 

[Hurriflatch]

I think that Hindmarsh & Cayless both make about 45% of 25% of 3.25 mill with Burt making up 10% of 25% of 3.25 mill

Someone with decent maths could work that out

 

[Eels Dude]

It's pretty simple. Cayless and Hindmarsh probably on 350 and 300 k and Burt on 100. That's 800k which is one quarter.

 

[Hurriflatch]

It's pretty simple. Cayless and Hindmarsh probably on 350 and 300 k and Burt on 100. That's 800k which is one quarter.

Thats what I said

 

[Suitman]

The why was Burt mentioned at all then. There's probably a dozen other players on the same 100k?, that could have been slotted into that statement.

Suity

 

[Eels Dude]

I think probably due to the fact he was injured for more than anyone else last season. I don't see a problem with 2 players taking up 700k. Johns and Buderas at Newcastle would be the same, Lockyer and Webke, Fitler and Ricketson, etc.