2003 vs. 2008 II

The disgruntled voices we mentioned about briefly a few weeks back are getting stronger. Having to perform a late, late show at Sheffield to snatch a draw didn’t go down well with the Salford faithful—many of whom thought the Reds deserved to lose. So...what exactly is the problem? Is it that we don’t have enough quality players? Did we underestimate the relative strength of the other clubs in NL1? Or are the Reds just simply out of form? Mind you: Salford are still top of the league, and unbeaten too. Aren’t we just lobbing our dummies across the terrace?

In trying to pinpoint exactly why we’re a bunch of unhappy campers, let’s look at some statistics. Salford have played six league games so far and are currently a third-way through the NL1 regular season. In comparing the 2008 Reds with recently prominent National League clubs, at the same stage of their respective seasons, perhaps we can find some reasoning, some solace and some optimism. Let the shit fly, as we stir a pot full of pointless figures and tailor-made conclusions!

The Table

First, let’s compare how we measure up against the Salford team of 2003, Hull KR of 2006, and last year’s standouts—Castleford and Widnes—six matches into the NL1 campaign:

Reds’ standing after 6 NL1 matches
	Pld	W	D	L
Widnes ‘07	6	6	0	0
Hull KR ‘06	6	6	0	0
Castleford ‘07	6	5	0	1
Salford ‘08	6	4	2	0
Salford ‘03	6	4	1	1

The most obvious stat here is that this year’s team is lagging, only slightly, behind the other dominant National League forces of the past two years at this stage of the season. However, this early on, the table is deft at creating a smokescreen. Widnes top the table on this occasion with an awesome points difference. Yet, they are the only team in the list that did not achieve promotion. It was Castleford who defeated them in the grand final, finishing the 2007 season stronger than the Vikings. Widnes must, therefore, have peaked too early; indeed, it was they who inflicted Castleford’s sole loss in the table above—a thumping home defeat to the biohazard boys. The other interesting stat is that the 2008 Reds are outscoring the 2003 team on competition points. This, remember, is the only team in the list above that completed the league and league cup double.

What then, does this table tell us. Well, that in comparison, competition-wise, Salford are doing fine. It doesn’t tell us who these teams played in their first six games, nor does it relay the relative quality of the league’s participants in a given year. It does confirm that the season doesn;t end after the May Day bank holiday, thankfully. Although if it did, Salford would still be heading into the playoffs as top dogs. Time to look at something else to find the roots of discontent.

The Points Difference

We all knew Salford would be tested more this year than they were in 2003, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. Yet we also felt Salford would still be the dominant force. And why not? Given a full-time squad with an impressive pack (on paper) and some exciting youngsters, not many teams could match us, or so we thought. Simply put: Salford haven’t yet imposed a points difference large enough to give us an air of dominance. Well, certainly not in comparison with the aforementioned clubs of yesteryear:

As you can see in the chart above, Salford’s points difference is way down on the likes of Widnes—who by this time last year had a points difference of more than double. Has the quality of NL1 improved that much in the space of the year? It’s doubtful. Without looking at any stats, one feature of Salford’s season so far, you’d say with some conviction, is how certain teams have been able to rack up a lead aganist Salford by half-time, leaving the Reds with it all to do in the second half. The stats really hammer this point home, however.

A points difference of 98 after six games is fairly impressive when you consider Salford’s first half points difference is comparitively unimpressive. In the first half of their league matches this term, Salford have scored just 68 points, barely more than 11 per stanza; however, they also let in a whopping 58 points in return. This gives a first half points difference of just 10.  Compare that against Salford’s 2003 figure, or Hull KRs’ of 2006: both had a positive difference of more than eight times at this stage of the season. Whereas, the Reds second half difference of 88 is more in tune with a team in the mood to dominate.

This says that Salford are more than a match for most their rivals, it’s just that they have to be under the thumb (or the pump— as is the buzz word of the times) to deliver the goods. Salford’s conservative approach in the first half of games is surely then, the crux of some fans’ discontent. It’s plainly obvious that when Salford start to offload the ball and play a more expansive brand of rugby, it causes other teams major problems, just as Widnes’ similar approach troubled Salford at The Willows. So why don’t the Reds play this way more often? Could doing such be of detriment to their defence? Evidently not.

The 2nd Half Defence

Of all the teams compared in this post, the current Salford team have the tightest 2nd half defence, so far: letting in just 34 points in 240 minutes of rugby. That is an average of less than 6 points per second half.

Now you can argue that by putting themselves in adverse situations, letting in, perhaps, too many points in the first half, Salford have needed to buck their ideas up in the second. But it’s one thing saying it needs to be done, and another thing actually delivering the goods. Salford are obviously capable of doing the latter. But how many times can they give teams, such as Batley and Sheffield, sizeable leads and rely on their superior stamina and class to pull them out of the mire? Especially when it is clear that Salford can as easily convert their second half form into the first half of games. This is certainly an area which Salford can improve on, and it’s a sign, perhaps, than Salford can (hopefully) only get better, as oppose to peaking too early like Widnes did in 2007.