Player Ratings

[BG]

Is Seage fit to play next week???

Then why argue about it.

We're not. We're arguing about whether Johns Magic can express himself in plain English better than the Pakistani cricket team. ;-)

 

[Johns Magic]

You "couldn't be f**ked" explaining yourself properly, yet...




... you took a poll? :sarcasm:

I did get your point. Clearly, you failed to get mine. Assessing what kind of player Seage will or won't be when he gets back on the field is too speculative to be relevant.

Yes, I did take a bloody poll.

Other people were able to see exactly what I meant and replied accordingly. No one else piped up trying to point out a technicality because they misunderstood the point.

Clearly you don't get the point. I said Seage is better than Polglase, as in Polglase isn't as good as Seage at fullback. Clearly I'm basing that on past performances, what else would I base it on? Games that haven't been played yet? I didn't say anything at all about how well Seage will go when he returns. Ever. I wasn't trying to assess who would be ahead of who in the pecking order when Seage comes back either, which is obviously what you mistook me for saying.

 

[Johns Magic]

We're not. We're arguing about whether Johns Magic can express himself in plain English better than the Pakistani cricket team. ;-)

I think even the Pakistani cricket team would've understood what I'd said.

 

[BG]

IToday it was the youngest bloke on the park and the debutant who hit back when the side was struggling, and I loved seeing it. Seu Seu's try meant a lot to me, it showed character. It brought us back into the game and made the boys realise that they could do it.

No need to explain what you're getting at this time. Well said!

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Yes, I did take a bloody poll.

Other people were able to see exactly what I meant and replied accordingly. No one else piped up trying to point out a technicality because they misunderstood the point.

Clearly you don't get the point. I said Seage is better than Polglase, as in Polglase isn't as good as Seage at fullback. Clearly I'm basing that on past performances, what else would I base it on? Games that haven't been played yet? I didn't say anything at all about how well Seage will go when he returns. Ever. I wasn't trying to assess who would be ahead of who in the pecking order when Seage comes back either, which is obviously what you mistook me for saying.

I'm with you JM. I don't know why BG is going on about something very much off the point.

I like this thread also BTW

 

[BG]

I said Seage is better than Polglase, as in Polglase isn't as good as Seage at fullback. Clearly I'm basing that on past performances, what else would I base it on?

OK. Clive Churchill is better than Seage, as in Seage isn't as good as Clive Churchill at fullback. Clearly I'm basing that on past performances. For a different team. And it's just as relevant.

 

[BG]

I don't know why BG is going on about something very much off the point.

The going on about it is just a bit of sport... JM replied to a post of mine with a niggle, and taking Polglase's example (or Seage's... on past perfomances that is ;-) ) I wasn't going to take it lying down.

The only serious point I'm making is that Seage gets quite a few mentions in dispatches (not only from JM) and we've got to be realistic about the fact that the guy is up against the odds. I truly hope he defies them.

 

[BG]

I don't know why BG is going on about something very much off the point.

 

[Pika]

The thing is, if McManus had marked his winger then the other Knights would've shifted to fill in the hole closer in. I've played wing a fair bit in my life and while I'm not professing to know everything about it, I know from experience that you're better off to stay out and let the guys inside you cover the centres than to let the winger through a gaping hole. If it's 1 on 2 or something like that it's different, but the play-the-ball was well in-field, and there was plenty of time for the defence to set.

We had an extra man, if he'd communicated with his inside men then there's no way they should've scored.

Just watched the tape.

Dogs had the numbers.

Hard to blame Jim.

Will need to watch the wide angle view to see who numbered up on the wrong side of the ruck or if the Dogs stacked the blind.

 

[Johns Magic]

OK. Clive Churchill is better than Seage, as in Seage isn't as good as Clive Churchill at fullback. Clearly I'm basing that on past performances. For a different team. And it's just as relevant.

:lol:

Mate, just give up. No one cares about it, everyone else understood, no one else felt it necessary to try and prove how perfect their grasp on the English language is.

You're the one who thought that me saying "Seage has him covered" meant that I think Seage will dominate the NRL when he returns. Either you can't read or your comprehension level is embarassing.

If you're trying to be smart, then the fact that you're the only person who misunderstood says something for your intelligence.

Now if you really want, I'll make a spelling error or something so you can have something else to revolve your life around for the next couple of hours. Just ask.

 

[Serc]

Yeah fair call JM... used to play wing myself in my short time playing footy (its where they had to hide me as I was too small and not fast enough ) and still play out in that area when i play touch today. I just felt that on the occasion where McManus ended up having to stick with the centre and the winger walked in for the try that it was a massive defensive blunder from the guys closer to the posts.

Either way he has some more learning to do, but at the same time some very promising signs for the future - and to think we haven't seen Uate get his time to have a crack at FG yet! Looking forward to both of these guys improving over the course of the year.

 

[Johns Magic]

Just watched the tape.

Dogs had the numbers.

Hard to blame Jim.

Will need to watch the wide angle view to see who numbered up on the wrong side of the ruck or if the Dogs stacked the blind.

It depends on the situation, but from what I saw he should've stayed on his wing and tried to make it 3 on 2 rather than 2 on 1. You'd be surprised how much a player can hesitate when he's got a marked man outside him, a marked man inside him, and a hole that he's not sure he can fit through. You're much more likely to score if you just have a defender inside you than if you have one inside and outside you.

The winger coming in basically means that if they pass it they'll score.
If the winger stays out, there's a chance that the inside defenders can come across in time to make the tackle on the centre.

The golden rule for wingers in defence is to stay on their opposing winger. If you do that, you've done your job and you can't get blamed. That way you've given your team mates the best opportunity to get to the ball-runner in time.

 

[BG]

No one cares about it

Except you apparently...

everyone else understood, no one else felt it necessary to try and prove how perfect their grasp on the English language is.

You're the one who thought that me saying "Seage has him covered" meant that I think Seage will dominate the NRL when he returns. Either you can't read or your comprehension level is embarassing.

If you're trying to be smart, then the fact that you're the only person who misunderstood says something for your intelligence.

Now if you really want, I'll make a spelling error or something so you can have something else to revolve your life around for the next couple of hours. Just ask.

... so instead of wrapping it up, you deliver four parapraphs of insults? I couldn't give a toss about your spelling errors. You do, however, deliver an excellent impersonation of a Duracell bunny with verbal incontinence. Seriously mate, all I did was make a simple observation -- that making comparisons with Dave Seage at this stage is irrelevant. I honestly don't know why you got so pent up over it. I usually enjoy your posts.

Over and out from me on this one. Please resume normal programming.

 

[roopy]

Hey you guys - 5 grades - 5 good wins.
More players showing massive improvement across the grades than i have ever seen for the Knights.
Be happy - this is a good day.

 

[Yosh]

I'm not getting the Polglase love here.

He wasn't tested under the high ball, he didn't break the defence, that was a nice angle he ran for his try but besides that he didn't do alot in attack. He missed a one-on-one tackle on Patten which gave them a try. I don't think I saw him even attempt another tackle.

I refuse to award someone points just because he gets physically dominated but keeps going. Good on the bloke showing some ticker, but it doesn't mean he had a great game.

Seage has him more than covered imo.

100% agree with you, and also 100% agree with your player ratings!@!!

 

[Johns Magic]

Except you apparently...




... so instead of wrapping it up, you deliver four parapraphs of insults? I couldn't give a toss about your spelling errors. You do, however, deliver an excellent impersonation of a Duracell bunny with verbal incontinence. Seriously mate, all I did was make a simple observation -- that making comparisons with Dave Seage at this stage is irrelevant. I honestly don't know why you got so pent up over it. I usually enjoy your posts.

Over and out from me on this one. Please resume normal programming.

I don't care that my sentence wasn't 100% perfectly worded with detailed elaboration and statistics to explain it to all the simpletons out there.

On the other hand, you trying to point out where I was wrong when I said nothing of the sort is bloody annoying.

It wasn't a "simple observation" at all. You took something I said and somehow twisted it into something completely different.

Tell me, what exactly on this forum is "relevant"? You comparing my grasp on the English language to that of the Pakistani cricket team? You going off on a tangent about David Seage over a tiny reference that meant nothing?

What I said was relevant, because I used it to establish my opinion of Polglase.

 

[BG]

Tell me, what exactly on this forum is "relevant"? You comparing my grasp on the English language to that of the Pakistani cricket team?

For sanity's sake, please have another look at the post I was replying to. Somebody else was interjecting and my comment was a joke for crying out loud. Are you aware that there has been a news item running about Pakistani cricketers having been banned from speaking English at their press conferences? Do you know that one of these ;-) implies that you shouldn't take a comment seriously?

I would really like to the end this. But I'm not just going to kiss your butt. So, I'll simply say: sorry if you feel I misunderstood your first post. I do now understand that you are highly strung.

 

[Johns Magic]

So, I'll simply say: sorry if you feel I misunderstood your first post. I do now understand that you are highly strung.

I'm glad that's settled then

 

[Burwood]

I'm not getting the Polglase love here.

He wasn't tested under the high ball, he didn't break the defence, that was a nice angle he ran for his try but besides that he didn't do alot in attack. He missed a one-on-one tackle on Patten which gave them a try. I don't think I saw him even attempt another tackle.

I refuse to award someone points just because he gets physically dominated but keeps going. Good on the bloke showing some ticker, but it doesn't mean he had a great game.

Seage has him more than covered imo.

Polglase did some great work to set up McManus' try. Very Gidley-esque.

 

[strewth_mate]

This is just out of my own curiosity, and have long agreed with the role of the winger in positioning and defense as outlined above, but something that always seemed a bit grey was should there ever be a time where the winger has no choice but to take on the centre? If the centre has got around his marker, and is running more or less unopposed to the line, it's got to come to mind to try and cut him, and any passes, off before he's able to get close enough to drag someone over the line. Sometimes the cover just doesn't come in time.

The crowd will just as likely blame the winger if he doesn't make an attempt to hit the centre, and is then forced to turn and chase down a line break. Unless of course he's up against Matt Gidley, in which case he's screwed either way... Basically, it's elementary that you stay on your winger, but would anyone acknowledge that sometimes, sometimes, there's no other option but to take the gamble?