Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by TheParraboy, Apr 28, 2016.
Well this is truly a battle of the mental giants....
More clutching at straws Alan?
So you reckon judging a player by how much teams win without him maybe isn't the most scientific way to analyse his impact? Of course now you'll accuse me of changing my tune, but the fact is I'm not the one who said this is why Scott is better than Watmough. I claimed Watmough was better than Scott simply by his individual stats. Maybe you should have a go at the bloke who brought up our win record without Scott being worse than our record without Watmough.
"El Diablo is a conspicuously obese misdemeanant and a petty flea-infested conglomerate of intellectual constipation."
It's not hard to insult someone intelligently but what's the point if they don't understand
No it doesn't:
Watmough and Scott were both recent Origin forwards. Their defence was absolutely comparable. Scott was a better wrestler with a lower miss rate, Watmough was quicker off the line. Where they weren't comparable was in their attack. Without Watmough our attack lost plenty last year (since at full strength the gameplan gave him a lot of carries) while we lose nothing (in attack) when Scott doesn't play. However to argue that less involvement from Scott is better for the team (which I would agree with) then means that Scott contributes more by doing less, is akin to arguing that Vai Toutai (also a better attacker than Scott) is a great contributor because he only plays when someone better is injured.
He's got about 100 kids, i dont think theres anything bi about that polar
To say that Scott's attacking contribution is easily replaced isn't any 'ridiculous sweeping statement', so good luck calling anyone out on it.
I understand Beau Scott is the hard merkin flavour of the month (I like him too, a lot more than I ever liked Watmough) so you guys are getting defensive about him. But he is a token contributor in attack, just like all the other forwards who regularly make only half a dozen runs in a match. That's your objective stat right there.
It was a throwaway comment in reply to an equally ridiculous statement, that our recent losses are proof that Scott is more valuable than was Watmough. If we still had the rolleyes emoticon I might have used it.
It's certainly not proof that I've lost this argument, rather, it is evidence that I will give idiotic straw-clutching arguments the respect they deserve. I'm still waiting for you clowns to start seizing on typos.
If he's worried about his mental health he needs to stay the f**k out of the city: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/25/city-stress-mental-health-rural-kind
So that's a no to the evidence question then?
So what proof do you use to state that our losses towards the end of last season are proof that Watmough is more valuable than Scott. You can't use an argument to try and prove a point and not let the other side use the same argument to prove theirs.
Hang on, didn't you say this:
Beau Scott has his strengths (including being a better defender
So is watmough's defence of equivalent quality, and if so, why would you say Scott is a better defender?
Huh? You make it look like I said that??/ I think you are taking the piss but if you aren't mental health / suicide rates are actually higher in rural areas
Edit: On second read, you def taking the piss. Carry on.
that's why people don't bother with you
Only if you think the stats are flawed.
I didn't use it to prove a point, I used it to invalidate an opposing argument. My own argument is based on Watmough's individual stats. I think our win record without him (or Scott this year or Junior Paulo last year) is mostly irrelevant.
Yeah I think Scott is a better defender, but Watmough wasn't far off. However I think Scott's attack is considerably less effective than Watmough's was last year.
If I had to dumb it down (and you're convincing me I should) then I would rate the two like this:
Scott: Defence 8 Attack 4
Watmough Defence 7 Attack 7
Scott probably has more hit points as well. Mannah has the most mana.
Suicide rates are higher in the country because there is a lack of support services but mental illness rates are definitely higher in cities.
And I never said you said that. I just quoted Foran in your post. What are you, paranoid?
I'm usually taking the piss. The article says it matters less where you live than where you grew up.
Separate names with a comma.