hineyrulz
Post Whore
- Messages
- 153,420
Starling lol, and Woodford.That’s because they already had Starling.
A couple of massive names there.
You have now become a parody of yourself.
Starling lol, and Woodford.That’s because they already had Starling.
Is Perth good enough??If our attack was good enough we wouldn’t have had to put ourselves under pressure to hold off the Bulldogs in the last 10 minutes. The game would have been over already. Don’t examine these things in a vacuum.
Your suggestion is meaningless. The offer itself would mean he was locked in for that second year, potentially on unders. It meant there was no scope to back himself and earn a bigger deal in the second year. Same with Talagi.Wouldn't have been meaningless to Him..
Nobody’s patting themselves on the back. Just stating the fact that we lost because of our defence, not because our attack wasn’t good enough.Good on them. They had less possession and a man sent to the sin bin for this game. Why aren’t you taking that into account? Do you think that happens every week? We were a team fighting for our lives and had our halfback and fullback back but couldn’t finish them off. We aren’t in a position ti be patting ourselves on the back because we played a brave Bulldogs team with the second best defence. We needed to win but came up short.
*opinionJust stating the fact that we lost because of our defence, not because our attack wasn’t good enough.
lol f**ken Brisbane XXXX and stuff lolol!!!!!Is Perth good enough??
@hineyrulz loves his XXXX almost as much as he loves a bun with the boyz.lol f**ken Brisbane XXXX and stuff lolol!!!!!
It wasn't until you added your 2c worth.f**k me Is thread still going ?
You took me off ignore for that??? f**ken lol and stuff.lol f**ken Brisbane XXXX and stuff lolol!!!!!
And watching the actual game (not the law of averages of previous games and what other teams do), the turning point in said game was clearly our failure to take advantage of our attacking momentum in the second half, when ahead 18-10.No we scored more tries against them than most teams do (twice in fact). We actually conceded fewer tries than the Dogs usually score but there was a merkinhair in it. The data is clear.
I also watched the game and that wasn't the turning point at all. The turning point was when Blake Wilson scored the winning try with five minutes to go. Anything before that, we were still in front.And watching the actual game (not the law of averages of previous games and what other teams do), the turning point in said game was clearly our failure to take advantage of our attacking momentum in the second half, when ahead 18-10.
You must watch the games in a very "special" way... fixated only on the scoreboard and after match stats - rather than detecting any nuances, shifts, momentum.I also watched the game and that wasn't the turning point at all. The turning point was when Blake Wilson scored the winning try with five minutes to go. Anything before that, we were still in front.
When I saw my reflection in the telly watching Parra lose yet another game, I noticed my dome was looking very thin and shiney up top so I turned to Ashley and Martin.I wonder when the turning point was exactly?