To the Editors of The Crimson:

After reading Jeffrey Zucker's "The Scouting Report" for the Harvard vs. Dartmouth game (October 19)--particularly his anlaysis of the kicking game--I feel the article was unfair and written without his consultation of the statistics.

The first point made is that Rob Steinberg "turned from goat to hero last week." This statement is not fair. While the William & Mary game was not a good one, a missed extra point and a 36 yd. punting average on a windy and rainy day does not make one a goat. The special teams--which include the line, the center, the holder, as well as the kicker--had a bad game. Similarly, the special teams had a good game against Cornell. This is an important distinction which President Zucker has consistently failed to make.

In his analysis, Mr. Zucker also writes that "the punting has been atrocious in spots. Steinberg needs to improve his punting to become an offensive threat." It seems Mr. Zucker forgot to check the stats before the game. If he had, he would have noticed that Steinberg was the 2 punter in the league going into Saturday's game. (Incidentally, he is now the 1 punter in the league with a 38.95 average). As far as kicking goes, the stats speak for themselves--four-for-four on field goals, 11-12 PAT's 1 on the team in scoring 1 in the league in kicking percentage and kiek scoring.

Harvard's kicking game--including the often ignored areas of returns and coverage, in addition to kicking and punting--is easily the best in the league on paper and on the field. Given the facts, it seems absurd for Mr. Zucker to have called the kicking games of the two teams a toss-up in his analysis.

As President, I'm sure Mr. Zucker is very busy. But, a good sports columnist should never be too busy to look at the stats. To sum up my thoughts: Zucker is an able writer but his column and his research have been atrocious in spots. Robert Steinberg   Punter, Placekicker,   Harvard Football Team