- Messages
- 77,719
OK then, was Jake given an opportinity or did injury of others create opportunity ?
To truely assess the "opportinity", then the base needs to be the same.
Consider this ..
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
OK then, was Jake given an opportinity or did injury of others create opportunity ?
I disagreed with the claim that the two had been given the same opportunity and you guys have been twisting and trying to put words in my mouth since. I've stated several times that the difference in opportunities given was the rank. I never argued Fogarty should have been moved up the order, but pointed out that if he had been that would be giving the two a similar opportunity. No riddles here.
Why wont you answer my simple question?
I might as well ask you if you agree that they weren't given the same opportunity. But this is obviously going nowhere fast.
I agree that they didnt have the same opportunity. I dont believe that the coach made a error by not moving him up the pecking order, hence why the word "given" is important for me.
Considering you agree with me then it's odd you've spent so long without making that clear. So thanks but I don't think your claim that that's how you answer a simple question holds much water.
Well, I was actually hoping for a bit more and was giving you the benefit of the doubt hence why I was asking a directly relevant question.
Load of twaddle. The obvious so what is that there should be more players ahead of JA. We both know that the only reason you chose to answer the simple question was that you thought it would give you the opportunity to gain the moral high ground and pretend that you were arguing in good faith. As to why I didn't answer your simple question that was because it wasn't relevant and was a move to shift the argument by you.
A 14 year old Jake Arthur showed him the door and became Fogarty’s dream killer.
He was the death of Hayne as well when he beat him on the 5km run as a 12 year old.
You are off your head mate. Of course the simple question was relevant. It goes to the heart of what your position was. By not answering it you were just hiding behind someone else’s words like you normally do.
Bullshit. The original claim by Joshuaeel was that they'd been given the same opportunity. I disagreed and have spent ever since arguing with someone who seems to be doing a hell of a lot of forum -copping lately and who it turns out actually agrees with me. That person being you. Have a beer or something, you're very cranky of late.
I think we established that we actually have different points of view but only after I squeezed yours out like a stubborn Nathan Cleary chin zit.
Why and why not?
I said possibly, not definitely. Maybe he should have been used before a creaky Jeff Robson and a borderline first grade utility in Smith. And maybe even displaced Gutho or Norman in the halves. But it was never my claim that the coach had erred. My point was and still is that the opportunity Fogarty didn't get was being up in the pecking order, or in fact being the only halves backup at all. And that' his ability probably merited that position more than Arthur's does.
He’s since proven he’s decent but what was he showing in 2017? Sounds like he wasn’t in a great place and wanted to go home. Maybe that would have been different if he found himself in the position that Arthur does now.
Maybe so but whether or not he should have been selected was never my argument.
On another note, how the f**k did we go from this in 2017 with a salary cap of $7 million:
