Sorry I don’t think there is
Interestingly (to me anyway) there is an extremely common flaw in how all our memories work. Things that produce a strong emotional reaction, things that conform to our already held ideas get bunched together and exaggerated both in number and in the particular features that both annoy us and that match with what we think. I’m not saying this is definitely the case here - was it the Eels game that happened in? In a team that had an utterly dreadful game, he was one of the worst that day no doubt. Even in 2016 when he had a shithouse year I don’t think he ever turned in a game that bad.
But I’d be willing to bet that if you could go and find all the instances that you’re remembering they’d both be fewer in number than your memory tells you, and not quite fit the criteria you describe. This goes both ways - because I think Lafai is a good player I’m more likely to notice, exaggerate, and remember and bunch together the things I think he does well and I enjoy seeing.
Lafai could certainly stand to make less errors, he’s in the top 20 for average errors at centre. And his worst tendency is a lack of ongoing intensity to stay involved if play goes past him which shits me too.
I like the intent of this thread rather than just quoting statistics.
When statistics are offered to compare players I often think that is somewhat unfair as it diminishes the logic / reasoning why we actually signed the player in the 1st place.
Whilst not positive it would seem logical that signings are not based on statistics but more from observation of players in games.
Those observations would then indicate what skills, attributes the player has and would bring to the team and then weighed up against the deficiencies he has and that would form the logic behind the signing.
When defending a player against arguments that he is under performing etc IMO it is somewhat flawed to use the statistics of other players to justify why he is so called "going all right", as in fact we didn't sign the player on that basis, we signed him because we liked what we saw of him and therefore it would IMO be more relevant to compare the player against his own stats .
It is fair to say I took some poetic licence in my reference to Lafai & his off loads by saying non existent.
However using the comparison to others (who may also be under performing) to illustrate that he is doing well (yes I understand the value of statistics and the analysis thereof) but to ignore the comparison to himself and the reasons why we signed him is IMO flawed.
Last year Lafai averaged around 2.7 off loads / game whereas this year I think he is around 1 / game.
IMO he is a far better player when he offloads and I see it as detrimental to him and the team when he is not, so IMO going from 2.7 / game down to 1 / game is monumental and going at 1 / game for a player that can do much more is worthy of the comment almost non existent. IMO he is being hamstrung by Mc Fookknuckle.
If we cast our minds back to why Lafai was signed no one was quoting his stats compared to other players it was all wax lyrical about him, so therefore I contend that being the case, best we compare him to himself and forget about the others.
Some reasons offered why we signed him were offloads, speed, footwork, able to make decisive long runs, great defender and no doubt some others.
Out of the above I think he still has got good footwork, he can offload but does not do it anywhere near the level we expected when we signed him, he has no speed and makes no decisive long runs and his defence can be suspect.
IMO that is the truth about evaluating Lafai and the comparison to others is just confusing the issue as that wasn't part of the equation when we signed him.
Simple question does Lafai have all the qualities of the player we signed form the Dogs when he was at his best?
IMO the answer is clearly no and IMO he has never achieved at the level of which he was supposed to.
