Rumours and Stuff

[phantom eel]

Because to use your analogy, he make everybody else's dick look huge by comparison. And we all like having a big dick.

Obvious!

Arguing with Pou has the same effect as trimmimg your pubes...?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I will be honest.... If someone like Stagger perhaps who I assume is a little closer to the club come out and stated Watmough off the field and in training had a great effect on guys like Manu - KE - Tepai i would perhaps take it a little more seriously.
But FMD Pou Pou Assumabar .... You are assuming that Watmough had this effect. Are you sure it was not first grade experience that made these guys better players rather then watmough? And even if it was the Choc effect how the effn hell do you know?
The answer is simple. You f**king don't. You made it up from some thought in your head that you have perhaps manifested some how thru some sort of dillusion. I like your posts Pou, i do. I think i have learnt a bit about NRL taking note on what you have said. Especially about building a squad with the salary cap in mind.
But FFS when your wrong admit it or atleast don't fight it. And if your just guessing than don't make out its fact.
Then we will all respect you a little more.

Ok carry on .....

Either Watmough was bought for his leadership and influence on our playing group which shit themselves at the end of 2014, or Arthur's got no idea.

I'll let you decide for yourself.

Either way, the objective proof we have of Watmough's better form (than Scott's) are his better stats. I'm not denigrating what Scott contributed to our team, which was leadership and aggression and solid defence (including great wrestle) in decent minutes per game, but he had a far more limited role in our team than Watmough. Ergo, Scott contributed less.

 

[Happy MEel]

Either Watmough was bought for his leadership and influence on our playing group which shit themselves at the end of 2014, or Arthur's got no idea.

I'll let you decide for yourself.

Either way, the objective proof we have of Watmough's better form (than Scott's) are his better stats. I'm not denigrating what Scott contributed to our team, which was leadership and aggression and solid defence (including great wrestle) in decent minutes per game, but he had a far more limited role in our team than Watmough. Ergo, Scott contributed less.

Except for that little stat that we had a better winning percentage with Scott in the team than we did with Watmough.

Don't forget the old chestnut used time and time again from coaches and players that defence wins matches...something that Scott is in the "elite" class for.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

OK. I keep noticing these posts that have 'You and Suitman like this.' but which I've never clicked on the like button....can someone else tell me whether, for instance, Post #11060 shows me as 'liking' it? No disrespect to Phantom.

 

[Dibs]

OK. I keep noticing these posts that have 'You and Suitman like this.' but which I've never clicked on the like button....can someone else tell me whether, for instance, Post #11060 shows me as 'liking' it? No disrespect to Phantom.

Interesting Barry that on my phone I don't see that unless I turn it on its side which then it says you(as in me) and suitman like this post. I haven't press the like button on said post though and I'm assuming since it is phantom suity hasn't either.If someone or myself likes a post I can see it in the phones upright position

 

[Noise]

OK. I keep noticing these posts that have 'You and Suitman like this.' but which I've never clicked on the like button....can someone else tell me whether, for instance, Post #11060 shows me as 'liking' it? No disrespect to Phantom.

It's his sig.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It's his sig.

Ahh. I see (it is in a bigger font/frame size). Very good. I started seeing it while travelling and using my phone (rather than laptop).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Except for that little stat that we had a better winning percentage with Scott in the team than we did with Watmough.

We also have a much better winning percentage without Sandow than with him. We are comparing two players in different years. Let's not compare apples with oranges by trying to isolate their influence on two fairly different rosters a year apart. Scott's 2016 team not only had the advantage of no Sandow, but all the young and inexperienced players of Watmough's team were a year older and more experienced by the time Scott joined the team.

Don't forget the old chestnut used time and time again from coaches and players that defence wins matches...something that Scott is in the "elite" class for.

I think you'll find that Watmough was a very good defender as well. Defence is also more of a team effort than attack, in the sense that your defence is only as good as your weakest link (look at us after Sandow left). Not so in attack, where your best attacking players have an inordinate influence on the game.

Not to say that Watmough was one of our best attackers but he was certainly key to our go forward. Scott's involvement in attack is merely token - to help out our better forwards while they are sucking in the big ones. In fact Scott's running game is so pedestrian that he resorts to speculator offloads to try and avoid a slow play-the-ball.

 

[hineyrulz]

We can't compare seasons but we can compare the stats of a middle forward and an Edge forward to suit Pou's argument..........

Lies,damn lies and statistics........

 

[Noise]

We can't compare seasons but we can compare the stats of a middle forward and an Edge forward to suit Pou's argument..........

Lies,damn lies and statistics........

Ha. But we can compare the two players in the 2 different positions over the 2 different seasons that we can't compare seasons???

 

[Happy MEel]

We also have a much better winning percentage without Sandow than with him. We are comparing two players in different years. Let's not compare apples with oranges by trying to isolate their influence on two fairly different rosters a year apart. Scott's 2016 team not only had the advantage of no Sandow, but all the young and inexperienced players of Watmough's team were a year older and more experienced by the time Scott joined the team.


I think you'll find that Watmough was a very good defender as well. Defence is also more of a team effort than attack, in the sense that your defence is only as good as your weakest link (look at us after Sandow left). Not so in attack, where your best attacking players have an inordinate influence on the game.

Not to say that Watmough was one of our best attackers but he was certainly key to our go forward. Scott's involvement in attack is merely token - to help out our better forwards while they are sucking in the big ones. In fact Scott's running game is so pedestrian that he resorts to speculator offloads to try and avoid a slow play-the-ball.

That's priceless.

 

[caylo]

We also have a much better winning percentage without Sandow than with him. We are comparing two players in different years. Let's not compare apples with oranges by trying to isolate their influence on two fairly different rosters a year apart. Scott's 2016 team not only had the advantage of no Sandow, but all the young and inexperienced players of Watmough's team were a year older and more experienced by the time Scott joined the team.


I think you'll find that Watmough was a very good defender as well. Defence is also more of a team effort than attack, in the sense that your defence is only as good as your weakest link (look at us after Sandow left). Not so in attack, where your best attacking players have an inordinate influence on the game.

Not to say that Watmough was one of our best attackers but he was certainly key to our go forward. Scott's involvement in attack is merely token - to help out our better forwards while they are sucking in the big ones. In fact Scott's running game is so pedestrian that he resorts to speculator offloads to try and avoid a slow play-the-ball.

I think your own arguments regarding winning percentages with Scott v Watmough also precludes your arguments regarding stats with runs and defence.
Outside of the fact that both these players are very different styles there are way too many intangibles that can not be objectified within the same playing group let alone year to year.

Scott played in a team with generally better meter making forward from the likes of Edwards, Moroea and Alvaro who played relatively minor/no role in compared to last year. Also Watmough played more like a prop while Scott played more like a two way backrower even when he moved to the middle of the park. Scott takes a lot more runs off a half later in the set when you receive the ball at the line while Watmough took a lot of runs early off the ruck allowing him time to reach the advantage line.

Watmough also made an error every 92min which is not a good thing when your often taking the 2nd or 3rd hit up while Scott made an error every 120min. Now Scott made 7.5m/HU compared to 8.2m/HU from watmough. So Scott makes 25% less errors, <10% less m/HU. which statistic is more relevant or significant here?

 

[Happy MEel]

I think your own arguments regarding winning percentages with Scott v Watmough also precludes your arguments regarding stats with runs and defence.
Outside of the fact that both these players are very different styles there are way too many intangibles that can not be objectified within the same playing group let alone year to year.

Scott played in a team with generally better meter making forward from the likes of Edwards, Moroea and Alvaro who played relatively minor/no role in compared to last year. Also Watmough played more like a prop while Scott played more like a two way backrower even when he moved to the middle of the park. Scott takes a lot more runs off a half later in the set when you receive the ball at the line while Watmough took a lot of runs early off the ruck allowing him time to reach the advantage line.

Watmough also made an error every 92min which is not a good thing when your often taking the 2nd or 3rd hit up while Scott made an error every 120min. Now Scott made 7.5m/HU compared to 8.2m/HU from watmough. So Scott makes 25% less errors, <10% less m/HU. which statistic is more relevant or significant here?

This is possibly the most well thought out contribution to this debate. Kudos Caylo

 

[Poupou Escobar]

We can't compare seasons but we can compare the stats of a middle forward and an Edge forward to suit Pou's argument..........

Lies,damn lies and statistics........

Were Scott's stats any better in the middle? If not then his time on the edges is irrelevant.

 

[hindy111]

To be fair Scotts attack is not great.Ive seen pidgeons run harder.
Its his big plays people love.Has way more grit then watmough. Nigglez and digs in more.Battles much harder.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ha. But we can compare the two players in the 2 different positions over the 2 different seasons that we can't compare seasons???

Don't misrepresent me. You can't accurately compare their effect on the team over the two seasons because the team wasn't the same, even where many players were common to both squads. Was 2015 Kenny Edwards comparable to the 2016 version? One led the team in tackle breaks, the other didn't play a single game.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think your own arguments regarding winning percentages with Scott v Watmough also precludes your arguments regarding stats with runs and defence.
Outside of the fact that both these players are very different styles there are way too many intangibles that can not be objectified within the same playing group let alone year to year.

By this logic you also dispute the people who say Scott contributed more.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I actually think Watmough was a better player.

Well then you're full of shit you f**ken idiot.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

This is possibly the most well thought out contribution to this debate. Kudos Caylo

His argument supports neither player.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

So I hear Toutai's got a year to run on his contract and will be top 25 as well...good news?