You love avoiding questions.
Then stop asking stupid questions. Your question rested on the assumption that we would have lost with Pearce instead of Reynolds, so to answer it would imply tacit agreement of your point. You must think I'm as stupid as you are.
Are you the kind of loser that doesn't want to give any credit to Hodkinson or Reynolds?
Everyone knows Reynolds was a liability. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially after a win. A bad loser, however, fails to credit the opposition after a loss. That's what you're doing by blaming Pearce. Me finding fault with Reynolds is not the same thing, mostly because we still won. Maybe I'm a bad winner.
Maybe we had 17 better players last year?
Maybe a lot of things. But the fact is we have a much larger sample upon which to compare two players during the NRL season, rather than a handful of games during Origin each year. Pearce is better than Reynolds in every way other than grubbiness.
If we stuck with your theory of keep picking Pearce then we may be staring down 9 in a row this year. Thankfully we didn't go with your theory.
Pearce is a better player than Reynolds. This is proven by their performance at club level every year as well as their performances at Origin level. If we won with Reynolds we would have won with Pearce.
And you are dam right he can't carry a team. So we should try and find someone who can. Mullen / Hodkinson combo comes to mind if they drop J Reybnolds
Yeah I rate Mullen. Until Carney is available again (even though he too has 'failed' at Origin :roll
our halves should consist of any two of Pearce, Hodkinson and Mullen.
But don't forget Mullen 'failed' at Origin too. ;-) Maybe we should stick with Josh Reynolds. :lol:
