Golden boot 2012?

[roughyedspud]

abit low calling bob foulton a liar

 

[deluded pom?]

Some people realise that life didn't just begin the day they were born. It's been around for thousands of years. Maybe Fulton had an idea of the history of the game or maybe he was commenting on the era he knows about in 'spud's posts e.g 60s.

 

[roughyedspud]

maybe he spoke to the likes of churchill & raper and asked them.....

 

[Señor]

maybe he spoke to the likes of churchill & raper and asked them.....

Grasping at straws a bit there.

 

[roughyedspud]

well you'll have to ask bob foulton given that it was he that said it on live f**king radio :lol:

 

[The Great Dane]

well you'll have to ask bob foulton given that it was he that said it on live f**king radio :lol:

Are we even certain that Fulton said any of this?

For all we know this could just be bull, unless you can provide proof.

 

[Señor]

well you'll have to ask bob foulton given that it was he that said it on live f**king radio :lol:

Are we even certain that Fulton said any of this?

For all we know this could just be bull, unless you can provide proof.

I've never had a particularly high opinion of a lot of the stuff Bob Fulton says and even if he did it doesn't mean it is true. Brad Fittler said that Jarryd Hayne should play at five-eight instead of Thurston because he was better and more deserving . So being a great player doesn't mean everything you say is intelligent or correct.

I suspect for a time the English leagues were a higher quality (back in the 60s or before mind you) but I doubt they were "light years" ahead. I think that is another load of **** from roughyedspud.

 

[The Great Dane]

I've never had a particularly high opinion of a lot of the stuff Bob Fulton says and even if he did it doesn't mean it is true. Brad Fittler said that Jarryd Hayne should play at five-eight instead of Thurston because he was better and more deserving . So being a great player doesn't mean everything you say is intelligent or correct.

True, some ex players say some very stupid stuff, enter Tommy Raudonikis!

I suspect for a time the English leagues were a higher quality (back in the 60s or before mind you) but I doubt they were "light years" ahead. I think that is another load of **** from roughyedspud.

Don't get me wrong I know for a fact that there must have been a time when the English competition was better then the Australian one, the game was invented over there and all. I'm just questioning whether or not Fulton actually said that stuff and if roughy can prove it, because it sounds like a crock of sh!t to me.

 

[roughyedspud]

:lol:


i can be even more specific regarding how it came about what bob foulton said...


they where talking about sam burgess " being a awesome british talent,which then moved onto gareth ellis which drew a comment about how its our forwards that tend to excel in australia which lead foulton to go way back and mention the legendary dick huddart and how unbelievable he was...and that "the game in england was light years ahead of the game in australia back then.."

now if you all get off your high horses for a minute and look at the quote..." THE GAME"...he may well have been referring to the structure of the clubs here? the wages? money? etc...


now......when the continuous call team starts up again i'll make a point of emailing the show to clarify what foulton said....

given how specific ive been though its laughable that you think im lying :lol: its also laugable that you think it's beyond the realms of possibility that bob foulton has'nt research the game in england either before he toured here as a player or as kangaroos coach...

 

[The Great Dane]

:lol:


i can be even more specific regarding how it came about what bob foulton said...


they where talking about sam burgess " being a awesome british talent,which then moved onto gareth ellis which drew a comment about how its our forwards that tend to excel in australia which lead foulton to go way back and mention the legendary dick huddart and how unbelievable he was...and that "the game in england was light years ahead of the game in australia back then.."

now if you all get off your high horses for a minute and look at the quote..." THE GAME"...he may well have been referring to the structure of the clubs here? the wages? money? etc...


now......when the continuous call team starts up again i'll make a point of emailing the show to clarify what foulton said....

given how specific ive been though its laughable that you think im lying :lol: its also laugable that you think it's beyond the realms of possibility that bob foulton has'nt research the game in england either before he toured here as a player or as kangaroos coach...

All the best lies have two ingredients, a grain of truth and they are incredibly elaborate!

Anyway I don't think you are lying just exaggerating, all good stories deserve a bit of embellishment.

 

[deluded pom?]

I believe you 'spud. ;-)

 

[roughyedspud]

thanks dad :lol:

 

[roughyedspud]

Don't get me wrong I know for a fact that there must have been a time when the English competition was better then the Australian one, the game was invented over there and all.

maybe it was when we won 10 ashes series back to back & 3 world cups??


c'mon guys stop being so f**king precious...ffs even OLDHAM used to beat australia :crazy:

 

[The Great Dane]

maybe it was when we won 10 ashes series back to back & 3 world cups??


c'mon guys stop being so f**king precious...ffs even OLDHAM used to beat australia :crazy:

You do realise that the part of my post that you just quoted agrees with you right?

 

[roughyedspud]

i know......the "there must have been a time" bit......... was 50 years long

 

[The Great Dane]

i know......the "there must have been a time" bit......... was 50 years long

Just out of interest I did a quick check on Wiki and there has never been a time when Great Britain or England has been as dominant over Australia as Australia has been over Great Britain/England in recent times. There were long periods where Great Britain/England was the dominant team (there for the best in the world), but they were nothing like how dominant we are now, for example in the times when GB/England were dominant we would win one every couple of games or so, but in the time that Australia has been (especially more recently) it can be quite a few years before the English/GB win a game let alone a series!

I defiantly would not say that England/Great Britain were truly dominant or the best in the world for 50 years, at most 20-25 years and then they were frequently teetering in and out of being able to make that claim with Australia, New Zealand and for a small time France causing them headaches!

Again not saying that there were not times when Great Britain/England were the best in the world, just that where not as long or as impressive as you make out.

Also I acknowledge that there have been times when Australia have been teetering in and out of being the best in the world, but never as much as Great Britain/England did.

Here's a couple of links: http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/List_of_results_of_the_Australian_national_rugby_league_team
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team_game_results_%281900-1940%29

 

[roughyedspud]

Just out of interest I did a quick check on Wiki and there has never been a time when Great Britain or England has been as dominant over Australia as Australia has been over Great Britain/England in recent times. There were long periods where Great Britain/England was the dominant team (there for the best in the world), but they were nothing like how dominant we are now,

i'd argue you are'nt dominant now cos you don't actually win everything these days...i'd say australia true dominance ended in 2005..




and to say "you where dominant for 20 years...but we where dominant for 30 years.....is picky as f**k mate :lol:.......the later series when australia where the dominant force they did'nt have to stop playing for world wars :lol:

 

[The Great Dane]

i'd argue you are'nt dominant now cos you don't actually win everything these days...i'd say australia true dominance ended in 2005..

and to say "you where dominant for 20 years...but we where dominant for 30 years.....is picky as f**k mate :lol:.......the later series when australia where the dominant force they did'nt have to stop playing for world wars :lol:

When I said dominant I was talking about just Australia and England's dominance over each other, until later in the post when I spoke about how both Australia and England have gone through times where other countries were on top.

i'd argue you are'nt dominant now cos you don't actually win everything these days...i'd say australia true dominance ended in 2005

I would say that 2005 is a bit early but fair enough, New Zealand has caught up to us in recent years and I say good on them. The more teams that are competitive with us at the international level the better, not only is it good for those nations when they are doing well, it also makes for more exciting games.

But in the last couple of years we have been on top again and NZ has gone into a bit of a recession which was very sudden and quite alarming

and to say "you where dominant for 20 years...but we where dominant for 30 years.....is picky as f**k mate

That is not what I was trying to do, I was just being honest.

the later series when australia where the dominant force they did'nt have to stop playing for world wars

Yes we did moron, Australia and New Zealand (the ANZAC's) were present in both World Wars.

You do know why they call them world wars right? It's because many countries were involved in the wars, not just Great Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Russia and Japan but almost literally world wide war in both cases!

Even PNG played a part in World War 2! (and maybe WW1 in some small way.)

 

[Señor]

Just out of interest I did a quick check on Wiki and there has never been a time when Great Britain or England has been as dominant over Australia as Australia has been over Great Britain/England in recent times. There were long periods where Great Britain/England was the dominant team (there for the best in the world), but they were nothing like how dominant we are now, for example in the times when GB/England were dominant we would win one every couple of games or so, but in the time that Australia has been (especially more recently) it can be quite a few years before the English/GB win a game let alone a series!

Post 2008 I think this is accurate. However, prior to that we did manage to win close to 1 in 3 games against Australia, even if we couldn't manage a series victory.

However, that is just me being pedantic. I agree with the overall sentiment of your post.

i'd argue you are'nt dominant now cos you don't actually win everything these days...i'd say australia true dominance ended in 2005..

:lol: Well that is a bit of a backflip.

You're quite willing to talk up New Zealand's successes when it comes to lessening Australia's stature in the RL world. However, elsewhere you are completely disdainful of the quality of New Zealand to the point where you think France is a legitimate chance of beating them in 2013 World Cup.

 

[deluded pom?]

Yes we did moron, Australia and New Zealand (the ANZAC's) were present in both World Wars.

You do know why they call them world wars right? It's because many countries were involved in the wars, not just Great Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Russia and Japan but almost literally world wide war in both cases!

Even PNG played a part in World War 2! (and maybe WW1 in some small way.)

He means that the world wars happened during a period of British/English dominance over Australia and thus reduced the number of series wins we may have had over you.