QLD utility for 2012

[Mr Fourex]

Irrelevant! You're better at posting pics. You have not answered my question at all. Scott could do that rotation you aforementioned if the bench consisted of two props, a back rower and Barba.

I want a logical answer why the inclusion of a bench consisiting of two backrowers with two props allows Scott to play more time than a bench with two props and a back rower + Barba.

I've given already you one you arrogant turd........

a 2nd back rower frees up Thaiday to alternate between prop (briefly) and the back row, whilst the 1st back rower is only covering Nate Myles. This allows Hannant and Scott solely to share their time together whilst Civo, Shillington & Thaiday share the other prop rotation.

Civoneceva is not as young as he once was and like Dave Shillington, his mins for him to be the most effective need to be limited ...IMO

......on top of this, the 2nd back rower in question ie: Gillett, can also cover 5/8 and centre quite comfortably as well

if he's needed to .......

and as for Barba

please ......no. Defensively and under the high ball, he would make me nervous as hell. I'd rather recall Matt Bowen if it was THAT type of player you were after on the bench and I never liked the Bowen on the bench idea to begin with.

Luckily for QLD......Meninga & Co. think whole lot differently to you and I for one don't feel the need to question their credibility and/or their judgement

unlike yours, which is unreasonable and autistic.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Are you stupid or trying to hide behind sophistry? I'm not namecalling. I'm genuinely interested.

You continue to bring in Thaiday at prop like it is remotely relevant to Scott playing more minutes at prop. Surely you realise that Thaiday spending time at prop means, if anything, less playing minutes at prop for the starting props? The issue is not Civ's age. The issue is about Gillet being selected meaning more time for Scott, a starting prop.

You brought up a rotation of Hannant and Scott meaning Scott could play 50 mins as oppossed to 45 mins last year. Can you honestly not see that rotation is possible without Gillet (a second backrower) being selected? Can you not see that it is irrelevant?

You are either illogical, or realise you are wrong and clinging to sophistry to save face. It is a bit binary. But that is how it is.

I want to know why a second bench back rower playing means more game time Scott as prop. Not sophistry.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Sophistry ...... Shmosofhistry

I've given you a perfectly logical explanation 3 times now. It would appear that no matter how I explain it to you, you're either too thick, arrogant, geniused or just hell bent on arguing to understand it.

If you won't accept my reasoning....... then stiff shit.

The fact of the matter is, QLD HAVE selected 4 forwards on the bench for game 1.

Matt Gillett IS one of them. As well as playing his part in the forward rotation, he has the added value of being;

a) a strike player who can turn something on

&

b) he can slot into the backs if he was required to.



I have said all along this is my idea of the perfect bench for QLD in SOO.

If you want to continue with your repetitive and nonsensical arguing, consider this my last reply to you regarding this matter.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Sophistry ...... Shmosofhistry

I've given you a perfectly logical explanation 3 times now.

No you havn't. You have given totally illogical and irrelevant explanations which I have highlighted to you.

It would appear that no matter how I explain it to you, you're either too thick, arrogant, geniused or just hell bent on arguing to understand it.

If you won't accept my reasoning....... then stiff shit.

You have not given any reasoning. I ask you how Gillett playing in the game will Scott more minutes as a prop and you talk about Thaiday playing prop. Can you not see 5 players playing prop means less available time on the pitch for the starting props? Are you that dumb? Can you not see that the Hannant-Scott rotation you mentioned can be done whether Gillet, a second backrower, plays or not? Likewise if it were a Shillington-Scott rotation.

I do not think you are that dumb. I think you now realise your post a year ago was ridiculous and stupid but that you are not grown up enough to admit it, so you attempted to resort to sophistry. Sophistry does not work on the intelligent.

If you want to continue with your repetitive and nonsensical arguing, consider this my last reply to you regarding this matter.

That is fine - but your stupid comment remains in my sig until you give an intelligent reasoned answer to it. For which so far, after a year, you have still failed to provide. It may be removed if I ever see a post that is even dumber and more unreasonable and illogical than yours. Until then - it and my question to you, remain open.

 

[Bretto]

I've understood it.

Petero, Shillington as one prop rotation with Thaiday covering that prop spot when Gillett comes on.

Hannant, Scott the other prop rotation.

Meaning, only Hannant and Scott are sharing the one prop spot, so both of them will play 40 minutes or more each, I guess depending on their direct impact into the game tonight.

If I can understand it, a 12 year old can understand it.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I've understood it.

Petero, Shillington as one prop rotation with Thaiday covering that prop spot when Gillett comes on.

Thaiday playing prop when Gillet comes on means less time available for the starting props to play.

Hannant, Scott the other prop rotation.

Meaning, only Hannant and Scott are sharing the one prop spot, so both of them will play 40 minutes or more each, I guess depending on their direct impact into the game tonight.

With two props on the bench regardless this is possible whether Gillett plays or not. Also, 40 minutes would be less time for Scott. They can both only play more than 40 minutes when sharing one spot if the game goes golden point. But if Scott and Hannant are solely sharing one spot, how is it then relevant that Gillett can move Thaiday to prop (with Civ and Shillo on the bench) to increase Scott's minutes? It's not relevant and it doesn't increase Scott's minutues.

If I can understand it, a 12 year old can understand it.

You clearly do not understand it but thanks for playing.

 

[ANTiLAG]

...

 

[Bretto]

You need to think a bit more on it mate.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Matt Cecchin took the utility role from Cronk superbly

 

[Mr Fourex]

You need to think a bit more on it mate.

Unfortunately AntiLag will be back about the same time next year........

Maybe by then he'll have figured it out. :roll:

 

[ANTiLAG]

You need to think a bit more on it mate.

No, you need to learn not to be sucked in by sophistry and to think logically but....

If I can understand it, a 12 year old can understand it.

seeing that you say you have the intellectual capacity of a twelve year old it is forgivable. Are you actually twelve or intellectually challenged for your older age? If you're an adult do not buy time-shares off Mr Fourex or send him cheques to any Nigerian address. He has already sucked you in once.