Not really interesting.
One of Kent's underlings writing a positive spin piece for his good mate Sticky.
He's yet to throw in "this team has got a lot of things that other teams I've coached didn't have".It's literally word for word what he said when he was coaching the Sharks.
:lol: We watched the game again with a predetermined angle for our obviously bias article.
Kent has mates ?
Yes because you have undisciplined rabble like the Eels and the Roosters Vs the well disciplined sides (we won't name names here.....)
so of course the referees are going to police teams differently.
It's a pretty simple concept.
When your captain is suspended mid finals series a reasonable coach will always sue the judiciary after calling them cheats.When you're sat in front of the media after a game and everyone knows you're a reasonable coach you cop the loss on the chin and say 'no comment' when asked about the referees, on the other hand . . .
And which coach would that be?When your captain is suspended mid finals series a reasonable coach will always sue the judiciary after calling them cheats.
From the same rich mine of logic........
"Ricky Stuart has been upset at referees before. Therefore the referees decisions were all good." That means referees cannot penalise a side coached by an eternal optimist.
Even Skeepe - the forensic scientist of referees mistakes - reckons they were right simply because Ricky Stuart is coach.
As for ECT, I love when he posts when his testicles are caught in a vice. All his ranting over the sacredness of referees and how coaches should never bag them, yet a week earlier his coach went off deluxe over the same referees!
Are you seriously that f*cking thick?And which coach would that be?
Answer the question. Which coach are you talking about?Are you seriously that f*cking thick?
When your carer next comes to wipe your arse, ask him about the 2008 finals series.
Answer the question. Which coach are you talking about?