NSW team lists and insults thread 2018

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Ooh all caps lock and childish name calling

Are you like seven years old?

Who plays instead of them?

Says the kid using stupid emojis and asking stupid questions which can drive a man insane. Are you actually blind you couldn't see the two guys who I had highlighted in your post?

Who plays instead of them erm maybe like current Kangaroo Tom Trbojevic and the form hooker Cameron McInnes?

 

[Springs09]

lol so Jackson shouldn't play because of his 'continual failure at Origin' but Klemmer should be in? pfft

 

[Rabbitoad]

Says the kid using stupid emojis and asking stupid questions which can drive a man insane. Are you actually blind you couldn't see the two guys who I had highlighted in your post?

Who plays instead of them erm maybe like current Kangaroo Tom Trbojevic and the form hooker Cameron McInnes?

Trbojevic is in awful, awful form. I'm genuinely shocked that you'd think that's a good idea.

McInnes offers nothing in attack unless he's running it himself. Mitchell Pearce showed us how one dimensial playmakers get exposed at Origin level.

I'm fine with disagreements, but why not just post that to begin with?

Why all the insecure, childish shit mate? What are you overcompensating for?

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

lol so Jackson shouldn't play because of his 'continual failure at Origin' but Klemmer should be in? pfft

Lol have you seen Klemmer play in Origin? He's was just about the best forward nsw had last year along with Frizell and Trbojevic.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Trbojevic is in awful, awful form. I'm genuinely shocked that you'd think that's a good idea.

McInnes offers nothing in attack unless he's running it himself. Mitchell Pearce showed us how one dimensial playmakers get exposed at Origin level.

I'm fine with disagreements, but why not just post that to begin with?

Why all the insecure, childish shit mate? What are you overcompensating for?

Trbojevic hasn't been great over the last few weeks along with the entire manly team but what about over the last 12 months? He was brilliant then and would have played SOO already had he not gotten injured last year.

McInnes is a good solid player, can defend well and offers a running game which will keep the defence in two minds, then inject Cook later into the game when forwards become tired so he can exploit those gaps.

I started with with 'please no' after highlighting those two players you listed, which you actually failed to even see. Then you go along and post stupid childish emojis and asking questions which were already answered. You tried to act smart going on about forming a logical argument and tried to belittle me while making an idiot of yourself for not seeing the obvious.

 

[umina panther]

1. James Tedesco
2. Josh Addo-Carr
3. Tom Trbojevic
4. Euan Aitken
5. Clint Gutherson
6. Blake Green
7. James Maloney
8. Paul Vaughan
9. Damien Cook
10. Reagan Campbell-Gillard
11. Boyd Cordner
12. Tyson Frizell
13. Jake Trbojevic

14. Tyrone Peachey
15. Jack de Belin
16. Nathan Brown
17. Angus Crichton

Dugan and Ferguson can be brilliant but half the time they are complete rubbish or disinterested. They've also been there long enough.
Addo-Carr is the form winger and should be in. Mansour would have been the other winger if not injured but I think Trbojevic and Gutherson are better than any other options we have.
Aitken, like Addo-Carr, is the form centre. Mitchell and Roberts are way too inconsistent and their defence is often shit. Jack Bird looks unfit and out of form.

Cleary would be in if he had played all year but he hasn't. Maloney and Green are the standouts. I wouldn't pick Keary purely based on the fact he's a Queenslander. Give him back to Queensland.

Never seen what's so great about Klemmer. Makes metres and fired up at Smith that one time. We have better forwards that do the same plus are more dynamic in attack.

I still think Peter Wallace is the best hooker NSW have but it's clear he's not in contention and is getting on a bit. Cook just over McInnes. Peachey is a better use of the utility bench spot than another hooker.

I think Josh Jackson is a great player but Frizell has to start. I can't pick Graham because of the rubbish in his game. Based on his excellent performances in a shit side last year Crichton deserves it more.

Love the man but he shouldn't even be Penrith hooker at this stage

 

[Rabbitoad]

Trbojevic hasn't been great over the last few weeks along with the entire manly team but what about over the last 12 months? He was brilliant then and would have played SOO already had he not gotten injured last year.

McInnes is a good solid player, can defend well and offers a running game which will keep the defence in two minds, then inject Cook later into the game when forwards become tired so he can exploit those gaps.

I started with with 'please no' after highlighting those two players you listed, which you actually failed to even see. Then you go along and post stupid childish emojis and asking questions which were already answered. You tried to act smart going on about forming a logical argument and tried to belittle me while making an idiot of yourself for not seeing the obvious.

You said "please no", trying to belittle me you thin skinned little hypocrite

I asked you to explain yourself and you went into a full blown tantrum.

Had you started by forming a logical argument like an adult, I wouldn't have had to point out how childish your first response was.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

You said "please no", trying to belittle me you thin skinned little hypocrite

I asked you to explain yourself and you went into a full blown tantrum.

Had you started by forming a logical argument like an adult, I wouldn't have had to point out how childish your first response was.

How is saying please no trying to belittle you? It was a simple response where I gave you the greatest of respects as I thought you would know why I would strongly oppose them rather then considering you an idiot who needs me to explain things to you like a 5 year old. Almost everyone on this f**king thread would be able to understand why having those two would be a bad idea.

 

[Rabbitoad]

How is saying please no trying to belittle you? It was a simple response where I gave you the greatest of respects as I thought you would know why I would strongly oppose them rather then considering you an idiot who needs me to explain things to you like a 5 year old. Almost everyone on this f**king thread would be able to understand why having those two would be a bad idea.

Sweet tantrum mate

You couldn't form a logical argument, so you got snarky and childish about it.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Sweet tantrum mate

You couldn't form a logical argument, so you got snarky and childish about it.

Let's have a run down of our conversation.

- you were to blind to see who I even posted about on your original post even though I highlighted BOTH players.

- I gave you an explanation as to why those two shouldn't be picked and to that you gave no response

- I explained to you which players should be selected, you argued against that, I posted a rebuttal to your counter argument to which you didn't reply

- I explained to you the reason behind my short response

And yet somehow I can't form an argument? Do you even know what an argument is?

 

[Rabbitoad]

Let's have a run down of our conversation.

- you were to blind to see who I even posted about on your original post even though I highlighted BOTH players.

- I gave you an explanation as to why those two shouldn't be picked and to that you gave no response

- I explained to you which players should be selected, you argued against that, I posted a rebuttal to your counter argument to which you didn't reply

- I explained to you the reason behind my short response

And yet somehow I can't form an argument? Do you even know what an argument is?

False.

-You posted a snarky, childish response with no explanation.

-You threw a tantrum

-I laughed

Grow up mate. Learn how to argue your point like an adult and you won't embarrass yourself like this.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

False.

-You posted a snarky, childish response with no explanation.

-You threw a tantrum

-I laughed

Grow up mate. Learn how to argue your point like an adult and you won't embarrass yourself like this.

I just explained it to you, they've failed over and over and over again at state of origin or did you just not manage to grasp that explanation?

Is this and the post before it not an explanation or?

Even if I threw a tantrum that doesn't detreact from the argument, by attacking the person rather then the argument itself commits a fallacy called an ad hominem. Instead of telling people to form an argument, maybe you should learn what it is and various rules surrounding the formation of arguments.

You can keep laughing till the sun goes down but again that's not an argument.

 

[Rabbitoad]

Is this and the post before it not an explanation or?

Even if I threw a tantrum that doesn't detreact from the argument, by attacking the person rather then the argument itself commits a fallacy called an ad hominem. Instead of telling people to form an argument, maybe you should learn what it is and various rules surrounding the formation of arguments.

You can keep laughing till the sun goes down but again that's not an argument.

An ad hominem fallacy like, "Please no"

So you're a hypocrite and you're thin skinned

Proud moment for you mate

 

[Lemon Squash]

Thought it was interesting Gus Gould who we know is one of Freddie’s main springboards going into Origin said ‘you will be very surprised with the halves, very surprised’ on 100% Footy on Monday night.

Considering everyone thinks Maloney is just about a lock for one spot, whoever is going to partner him must be going to be from left field a bit.

Also he made the point Freddie is keen to play an team with plenty of points in it. So I expect Addo-Carr, Mitchell and Roberts all to be in the backline.

 

[Smack]

1. Tedesco
2. Addo Carr
3. Aitken
4. Mitchell
5. T. Turbo
6. Green
7. Maloney
8. Vaughan
9. Cook
10. RCG
11. Friz
12. Sims
13. JDB

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

An ad hominem fallacy like, "Please no"

So you're a hypocrite and you're thin skinned

Proud moment for you mate

How is me saying 'please no' an ad hominem?

 

[Rabbitoad]

How is me saying 'please no' an ad hominem?

Your denial just makes you look more insecure mate.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Your denial just makes you look more insecure mate.

You're not even answering the question - I think that just shows how dishonest you are. You're not having this discussion to find out what's right but to try and prove you're right - which you're doing a horrible job of by the way.

Since I challenged your statement without any reply - your claim FAILS.

 

[Rabbitoad]

You're not even answering the question - I think that just shows how dishonest you are. You're not having this discussion to find out what's right but to try and prove you're right - which you're doing a horrible job of by the way.

Since I challenged your statement without any reply - your claim FAILS.

I've explained why and you're sulking and refusing to acknowledge it.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through a conversation until you're mature enough to admit to your childish behaviour.

I have no desire to try to have an adult conversation with someone who can't reciprocate.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

I've explained why and you're sulking and refusing to acknowledge it.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through a conversation until you're mature enough to admit to your childish behaviour.

I have no desire to try to have an adult conversation with someone who can't reciprocate.

Where is your explanation about why me saying 'please no' is an ad hominem?

You tried to claim that was my attempt at belittling you which I swiftly countered and have had no reply to.