Top ten things Rugby owes to league

[RockWheel]

How long did you spend writing that?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

11.07 to 12.51.

LOL

I'll get to it later, right now I have to save a homeless guy from the chair for trespassing.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Is it just me or do you think that an intelligent, qualified individual would have more to do than post repetitive, Tolstoy length drivel that noone reads?

 

[flying fijian]

Very interesting read.
The truth about France is an interesting case, I remember reading that they had 200 odd clubs established within the country in five years during the mass spread of RL.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

You really should put to whom you’re aiming your posts at, at the top of your posts. At least that would be one sensible thing in them.

I actually think this one was ½ aimed at Loudstrat and ½ at myself. Which would point the finger towards your state of mind being pretty f**ked up to be honest…

You still havn't answered my questions.

Hardly. You’re mistaking it for me being bored with repeating myself because you ignore the answers.

Running scared?

You have serious problems. You really do.

I have asked you so many now; here are some key ones off the top of my head....

Watch out for the point.

Where are you still seeing toe poking in league presently at high level? Under 8's or golden oldies? (Its a crap technique - thats why it is extinct.)

You said it was extinct.

It isn’t.

You can’t add “at high level” a few days later and get away with it.

If, as you say, round the corner is so easy and does not need coaching- why does/did Halligan teach so many kickers how to goal kick?

Ron Giteau.

Next question.

Are you better kicking the oval ball than A Johns was? Or maybe you're better than J Thurston, B Goodwin, Michael Gordon, K Gidley, L Burt, D Carter and many more players who are coached by Halligan?

Where did I even intimate that I was a better goalkicker than the blokes you mentioned?

You’re a spoon short of a cutlery set.

If as you say round the corner kick coaching has no benefit as opposed to toe poke - are these clubs idiots to pay for coaching?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Show me where I even suggested that.

Around the corner is the better option now.

Or have the things that make goal kicking easier to your mind (synthetic balls, grounds, tees) now necessitate the need for coaching? That would be very odd to say the least. Surely you still kick the synthetic ball in the same area, stand and run on the manicured ground and simply place the ball on the tee which is presumably easier than making a sand castle or a divot. You say its not 'rocket science' and these things make the process process easier. And yet - these players need and benefit from coaching. Maybe its the difficult technique that needs coaching.

Of course they make it easier you f**king nong. You’ve lost it.

If coaching of goalkicking is unnecessary to obtain maxmium advantage/benefit why did A Johns go from a 64% kicker to a consistently 80% kicker for the next 5 seasons when coached by Halligan...?

Who said coaching of goalkicking was unnecessary?

Is not a 16%+ percent increase in accuracy an advantage?

I’ll answer the question after you provide the proof of when Andrew Johns began being coached by Halligan.

if not - why not?

See last answer.

Does the increase in accuracy under coaching not display the benefits of round the corner kicking coaching.

Who’s disputing that?

You’re a couple of cards short of a full deck.

If a coach is needed to improve the task, is the task not one that is difficult to self master?

What are you raving on about that for?

LOL

Why was round the corner gaining ascendency during the 'era'/period of leather balls and before kicking tees?

Why did it take 50 years?

Why were the union converts so much better on average than the other cumulative average of other goal kickers from the 90's era - (Botica, Crossan, Ridge, Halligan and Schuster average 78.2% for every NRL kick they took combined).

The 90’s….FFS.

The shift to around the corner didn’t happen in the 1990’s. It didn’t even happen in the 1980’s, it began in the 1970’s and started to take hold in the late 1980s. The blokes you wank on about constantly came after the change was more than in process.

The improvements in drainage started before the 1990’s you terminal wally.

And f**king Botica again.

He played 5 games you drip.

If union converts have not improved goal kicking accuracy - why do most clubs employ Halligan as a goal kicking coach? Or Botica for that matter?

Where is your proof of the Union coaches coaching in the NSWRL in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Why do you constantly ignore that very pertinent question?

If tee's, as you say, negate the union converts role in hastening the end - can you explain why then why most kickers use a unon convert Daryl Halligan designed and patented kicking tee?

They came after the change was well underway.

Why don’t you get that?

They had little to do with it coming to the fore in the NSWRL.

If tees, as you say, make goal kicking easier and accurate and if Jack Gibsons was the lead innovator and would have implemented any advantage to secure benefit- why did he not implement the kicking tee?

For christ’s sake. :lol:

You’re barking mad.

If union had no role to play can you explain how this is so when union introduced and made tee's compulsory (players at that time preferred sand and were forced to adapt) when sand was the norm in the nswrl? Union did this to save time taken for kicks and were not concerned at the intial reduction in accuracy for goal kickers.

Union had no role.

Some ex-Union players had a role after it was the norm in the NSWRL.

Let me explain it simply; Jason Taylor played in the NSWRL before Matthew Ridge and Halligan.

Can you explain why union had the synthetic ball first?

Did it?

Before Soccer, NFL, AFL, Rugby League, Gaelic Football etc?

Prove it.

Can you explain why goal kicking was so inaccurate in the NSWRL in the 1980's and start of 1990's but so accurate today without unions influence?

It’s been said 10 times already.

Rather than just repeat ad nauseum what has already been explained to you in detail numerous times, I will insult you, you phlegm-gargling hamster defiler.

Tee's - no. Union convert Halligan was the driving force behind those first being used, and his tee is still widely used today.

So, he was the first to use kicking tees worldwide was he?

Prove it.

Again, prove that Union was the first to use synthetic balls worldwide.

Grounds? Well it doesn't take a lot of balance to kick a ball and not fall over. And when Ridge when he converted was far superior on the same grounds with a leather ball.

The grounds that Ridge played on were not the same as the grounds Cronin played on you cretin.

Can you explain why below average players like Crossan or Schuster were signed if not for goal kicking? If you agree they are below average, why would NSWRL need to sign union converts to goal kick?

When were they signed?

Before or after the round the corner kicking was already becoming the norm.

Before or after Jason Taylor?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Can you explain why Halligan states he was signed as a goal kicker not a player?

Because he was signed as a goalkicker?

Can you explain why you think synthetic balls, tees and manicured grounds make it era contextual round the corner vs toe poking?

It’s been explained numerous times you limp-wristed fairy penguin frotter.

Surely, its a matter of physics that round the corner will give increased accuracy over toe poking. There is a bigger surface area thus less chance to miskick and like a bigger golf club face - more forgiving to error. Era is irrelevant to that. The supposed 'improvements' - grounds, the union designed kicking tees, the union inspired synthetic ball would be there for the toe pokers, too. That leaves technique. Now you COULD say those improvements gave MORE benefit to the round the corner kicker than the toe poker (throwing you a bone to help you) - but how? Explain how this is remotely possible? Both techniqures require the kicker to run along on the ground, both require that the ball be placed ready to be kicked. In both techniques the ball flies through the air. (now you could say the synthetic ball goes further than the leather ball did when wet but then why did the change to synthetic not have a noticable impact on the improvements of kickers who used both balls (eg compare 1990 and say 1991 or give a couple of years to adjust so 1993) to todays levels? And why was goal kicking accuracy still improving from 2000 to 2010? Why will accuracy presumably still climb?

You’re a f**king nutbag. That is just pure, unadulterated dross.

If you went to prison and shared a cell with Charles Manson, he would be considered the sane one.

Thus ITS NOT the equipment. Its the technique. That's why union went to round the corner in the mid/late 70's. NSWRL lagged behind in technique and training. The union converts brought a far more superior exhibition of goal kicking consistently. Then coached others how to do it and the people who use this technique today at teh top level invariably have a kicking coach. The most common kicking coach for top level is Halligan.

Yeah, it is the equipment, it is the ball, it is the grounds.

Ridge belted around the leather ball without tee's in 1990 and caused more union goal kickers to be signed. Halligan admits in those interviews I linked earlier that he was signed as a goal kicker first not a winger. Union's accuracy already in the 1980's (with leather balls, shoddy grounds, and grass divots) was way ahead. As shown by the fact he was not even the kicker for any of his union teams.

John Gray? Well after he retired people were still toe poking. After Halligan retired noone was. Different equipment? You mean union insired and designed equipment such as synthetic balls (inspired) and tees (designed)? They had 'em both first. League came lagging.

Gray wasn’t the best kicker in the NSWRL in his time.

Do you think that explains why it didn’t take off then and there?

Why do you think Gray wasn’t the best. Could it have something to do with the fact that he was playing in an era not conducive to around the corner kicking as was the case later on?

Oh wait, that’s commonsense. Something you’ve never dealt with before.

Now John Gray and Willie Horne did not make a lasting difference. I think it plain for all to see judging by the amount of coaching and equipment designed that Daryl Halligan has done more for goal kicking accuracy improvement in Australian rugby and league than anyone or anything else. He's a union convert btw. He was signed for his goal kicking following Ridge's success. By his own admission in those article's I gave links for he stated in an interview that he was a goal kicker - nothing else.(its in the A Johns one).

You’re dribbling.

Union had round the corner goal kicking widespread first. Their toepoking became extinct 10-15 years before the NSWRL's/ARl was. They had the tee's first. The synthetic ball first. It is a union convert who has developed the 'supertee' that most use. It is these union converts Halligan and Botica who have taught the players on tee's and with synthetic balls how to goalkick better.

Botica again.

Head case.

You are wrong because;

No, I’m not.

1 Union/Union converts have irrefutably improved league goal kicking accuracy. So even if tee's and ball changes caused the shift to round the corner it is Union converts that coach that technique and supply the tees en masse. A Johns 60-80% under Halligan. Arguably, union gave the inspiration to the synthetic ball.

They weren’t the reason for the change, they never were.

2 Round the corner kicking will give greater accuracy in any era due to the physics of a greater surface area of boot kicking the ball thus far far far reduced less chance to miskick the ball.

No.

Many other eras had it as an option and didn’t use it.

Either the coaches of those eras were wrong or you’re wrong.

The correct answer is; you’re wrong.

3 The equipment has done far less, if anything, than the technique for improving accuracy due to reasons as above, - but EVEN IF IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANCE to do with improved accuracy - the tees came from union and have been redesigned and widely implemented by a union convert.

Wrong.

THEREFORE, union and union converts have had major influences in improving goal kicking accuracy in the NRL.

Union had nothing to do with it apart from not paying blokes.

Who is arguing that the Kiwis didn’t have something to do with the coaching of Round the corner kickers from the mid 1990’s onwards?

You claimed that they were coaching in the NSWRL much earlier than that and you haven’t posted anything to prove your claim.

I'd love for you to explain to me why you say why round the corner goal kicking coaches are of no benefit because Jack Gibson did not have one, because L Burt, K Gidley, B Goodwin, H El Masri, A Johns, M Gordon, J Thurston could have saved or save a fortune on Halligan's fee. You’d also have to explain why their success rates climbed under him (and often drop without him).

You’re getting worse.

If toe poking was better in the yesterday era I'd love for you to explain why Gray and Ridge did so well? Anamolies - not as far as the union evidence shows where all were kicking round the corner. Why is toe poking extinct at all top levels now?

Gray wasn’t that good and Ridge was after the change had begum in earnest. Like I said, Jason Taylor played in the NSWRL before Ridge, do you seem me claiming that he was a massive influence?

You need to give a reason why toe poking was better without manicured grounds, tees and synthetic balls - but even then your conclusions about goal kicking coaching being unnecessary to secure an advantage are wrong or all todays coaches are bonkers. If tees are a significant factor, then your conclusion that league has not benefitted from union converts is wrong. Your best bet is to go with the ball - but union had that ball first - league copied - so that's wrong. Notwithstanding that - the synthetic ball retains less water than leather ball when wet, but this is of little significance because long range penalties are still not common place in league and there was is marked improvement between 1991 (syntehtic introduced) to today's levels - thus the dramatic improvement cannot be the syntehtic ball because league kickers were kicking pies in 91,92, and 93. Even between 2000 and 2010 there has been marked improvement. So, not the synthetic ball on either account. Your conclusion that Jack Gibson was right to think goal kickers coaches were unnecessary to obtain every advantage and round the corner is an easy technique is implausible as almost every club and great kickers have them now and improved under them.

No, it’s all been said over and over.

What you need to do is find a bus and be under it.

You are wrong on so many levels. In so many places. But you can try n cut this up - add some irrelevant material and try for lame insults of me. Try for some ad hominem.

I don’t eat Turkish food.

God you’re stupid.

The 1990’s Kiwi union converts have definitely improved goal kicking standards, first by other clubs copying, then by their coaching and if, as you say tee’s are a significant factor, then by designing and supplying said equipment. Your whole – if coaching round the corner was needed Jack would have had one does not stand up. Never will. Ridiculous argument.

Like I said already twice in this post, Jason Taylor pre-dates Halligan and Ridge in the NSWRL.

Your whole argument dies with that statement alone.

It’s the coaching of the technique by union converts that has significantly improved the accuracy. Knowledge dissemination. League brought in some useful guys from union, such as Botica and Halligan, who have shared the knowledge post career. They did the same with Hewson in the 1990's as copycatting does matter. Coaching does matter. The union converts had mastered their trade with both leather and synthetic balls. Made sfa difference to them what they kicked. But rest assured, teams knew they were at a serious disadvantage with a toe poker kicker by mid/late 1990's thus it bcame extinct.

Botica again?

FFS, what is it about him that get’s you all engorged?

He was a nobody. Lincoln Raudonikis is more important in the annals of Rugby League in Australia than Botica.

So, there were only Union converts brought in as around the corner kicking coaches?

Why not prove that and while you’re at it, prove when the first one was employed in the NSWRL.

Then head for the harbour bridge and do a 3 ½ twist with pike off if you gormless plonker.

I'm glad you are so interested in how I perform in my career. Whats yours? Still not saying?

I couldn’t care less who or what you are off here and I never did.

It’s a forum. You could tell us you’re the Sultan of Brunei and it would make as much impact as telling us you pick empty cans off the street for a living.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

duplicate.

 

[ANTiLAG]

EA - I'm very disapointed at your feeble attempts to answer my questions. The proof about A Johns being coached by Halligan is in a link I posted days ago in this thread.

If, as you say, round the corner is so easy and does not need coaching- why does/did Halligan teach so many kickers how to goal kick?

Why do A Johns , J Thurston, B Goodwin, Michael Gordon, K Gidley, L Burt, D Carter and many more players use/used Halligan's coaching.

Or have the things that make goal kicking easier to your mind (synthetic balls, grounds, tees) now necessitate the need for coaching? That would be very odd to say the least. Surely you still kick the synthetic ball in the same area, stand and run on the manicured ground and simply place the ball on the tee which is presumably easier than making a sand castle or a divot. You say its not 'rocket science' and these things make the process process easier. And yet - these players need and benefit from coaching. Maybe its the difficult technique that needs coaching.

If coaching of 'round the corner' goalkicking is unnecessary to obtain maxmium advantage/benefit else Jack Gibson would have implemented it why did A Johns go from a 64% kicker to a consistently 80% kicker for the next 5 seasons when coached by Halligan...?

Is not a 16%+ percent increase in accuracy an advantage?
You answered "I’ll answer the question after you provide the proof of when Andrew Johns began being coached by Halligan. "

Here's the proof...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10390493

if not - why not?

Does the increase in accuracy under coaching not display the benefits of round the corner kicking coaching.

You answred "Who’s disputing that?". So you admit coaching improves round the corner accuracy. Thus, you are wrong to say it is easy to do, or Jack Gibson missed an advantage? No?

If a coach is needed to improve the task, is the task not one that is difficult to self master?



YOU: "What are you raving on about that for?"

ME: "Errr, because you said round the corner was easy to learn."

Why was round the corner gaining ascendency during the 'era'/period of leather balls and before kicking tees?



You: "Why did it take 50 years?"

Me: Because it was hard to learn and there were not professional coaches teaching it.

Why were the union converts so much better on average than the other cumulative average of other goal kickers from the 90's era - (Botica, Crossan, Ridge, Halligan and Schuster average 78.2% for every NRL kick they took combined).

If union converts have not improved goal kicking accuracy - why do most clubs employ Halligan as a goal kicking coach? Or Botica for that matter?

If tee's, as you say, negate the union converts role in hastening the end - can you explain why then why most kickers use a union convert Daryl Halligan designed and patented kicking tee?

If tees, as you say, make goal kicking easier and accurate and if Jack Gibsons was the lead innovator and would have implemented any advantage to secure benefit- why did he not implement the kicking tee?

If union had no role to play can you explain how this is so when union introduced and made tee's compulsory (players at that time preferred sand and were forced to adapt) when sand was the norm in the nswrl? Union did this to save time taken for kicks and were not concerned at the intial reduction in accuracy for goal kickers.

Can you explain why union had the synthetic ball first? Proof: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/feb/05/rugbyunion.features - League waited until the 90's.

Can you explain why goal kicking was so inaccurate in the NSWRL in the 1980's and start of 1990's but so accurate today without unions influence?

Tee's - no. Union convert Halligan was the driving force behind those first being used, and his tee is still widely used today.

Synthetic balls? No - Union had those first, but were kicking mightily fine round the corner before that with leather. A Johns could spend a year kicking at a lowly 60% with synthetic balls and dramatically rise the next year with coaching - hmmm maybe we've found something....

Grounds? Well it doesn't take a lot of balance to kick a ball and not fall over. And when Ridge when he converted was far superior on the same grounds with a leather ball. Did the grounds all massively improve in 4 years?

Can you explain why below average players like Crossan or Schuster were signed if not for goal kicking? If you agree they are below average, why would NSWRL need to sign union converts to goal kick?

Try answering the questions this time. Jason Taylor - good kicker - what was he shooting in 1990 - like 50%? Yeah - really got it flying before Ridge, not.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Can you explain why you think synthetic balls, tees and manicured grounds make it era contextual round the corner vs toe poking?

Surely, its a matter of physics that round the corner will give increased accuracy over toe poking. There is a bigger surface area thus less chance to miskick and like a bigger golf club face - more forgiving to error. Era is irrelevant to that. The supposed 'improvements' - grounds, the union designed kicking tees, the union inspired synthetic ball would be there for the toe pokers, too. That leaves technique. Now you COULD say those improvements gave MORE benefit to the round the corner kicker than the toe poker (throwing you a bone to help you) - but how? Explain how this is remotely possible? Both techniqures require the kicker to run along on the ground, both require that the ball be placed ready to be kicked. In both techniques the ball flies through the air. (now you could say the synthetic ball goes further than the leather ball did when wet but then why did the change to synthetic not have a noticable impact on the improvements of kickers who used both balls (eg compare 1990 and say 1991 or give a couple of years to adjust so 1993) to todays levels? And why was goal kicking accuracy still improving from 2000 to 2010? Why will accuracy presumably still climb? Also - is Bob Dwyer a "charles Manson nutbag'?

Try answering the questions EA

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

EA - I'm very disapointed at your feeble attempts to answer my questions.

And I’m disappointed that you continually waste oxygen, but life’s like that.

The proof about A Johns being coached by Halligan is in a link I posted days ago in this thread.

Re-post the link but make sure it clearly state when he took over as Johns’ kicking coach. Don’t expect people to backtrack through your idiotic posts.

If, as you say, round the corner is so easy and does not need coaching- why does/did Halligan teach so many kickers how to goal kick?

It is easy to learn.

Dumb prick.

Do you even remember what the argument was about?

Why do A Johns , J Thurston, B Goodwin, Michael Gordon, K Gidley, L Burt, D Carter and many more players use/used Halligan's coaching.

Ron Giteau.

Who is D. Carter, when did he play in the NRL?

Or have the things that make goal kicking easier to your mind (synthetic balls, grounds, tees) now necessitate the need for coaching? That would be very odd to say the least. Surely you still kick the synthetic ball in the same area, stand and run on the manicured ground and simply place the ball on the tee which is presumably easier than making a sand castle or a divot. You say its not 'rocket science' and these things make the process process easier. And yet - these players need and benefit from coaching. Maybe its the difficult technique that needs coaching.

Ron Giteau.

Who’s arguing that coaching hasn’t improved the around the corner kickers you semi-literate simpleton?

Around the corner kicking was available in the Gibson eras. He, and other coaches, didn’t use it. That’s the point.

If coaching of 'round the corner' goalkicking is unnecessary to obtain maxmium advantage/benefit else Jack Gibson would have implemented it why did A Johns go from a 64% kicker to a consistently 80% kicker for the next 5 seasons when coached by Halligan...?

What are you barking about?

Who is saying that coaching doesn’t improve around the corner kickers?

Is not a 16%+ percent increase in accuracy an advantage?
You answered "I’ll answer the question after you provide the proof of when Andrew Johns began being coached by Halligan. "

Here's the proof...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news...ectid=10390493

It says in that article that Johns was a 60% kicker when Halligan took over his coaching in 2001. Johns’ career average was never around 60%.

His career average at the end of 2000 was just under 70%.

And what happened in 2004?

Johns’ percentage was 54%?

And before you bark that he only had 13 kicks at goal, let me remind you about your Mick Cronin in 1986 argument.

Still, when has the point of the argument ever been that coaching hasn’t improved the later kickers?

if not - why not?

Irrelevant.

Does the increase in accuracy under coaching not display the benefits of round the corner kicking coaching.

It demonstrates the improvement of some around the corner kickers with coaching. If you want to prove that it improves all of them, feel free to post the averages of every around the corner kicker prior to coaching and after coaching. Another pointless crusade..

You answred "Who’s disputing that?". So you admit coaching improves round the corner accuracy. Thus, you are wrong to say it is easy to do, or Jack Gibson missed an advantage? No?

f**k me dead. lol

Gibson didn’t miss an advantage. It was available to him but he didn't believe it would help him. And neither did all the other coaches of the time and the many, many decades prior.

They were wrong or you're wrong.

Which is it.

If a coach is needed to improve the task, is the task not one that is difficult to self master?

YOU: "What are you raving on about that for?"

ME: "Errr, because you said round the corner was easy to learn."

It is.

I’ve never had a lesson but I can do it well enough. I wouldn’t be good enough for the NRL though and I’ve never claimed I could be. Ron Giteau taught himself well enough to do it in the NSWRL.

He must have been Albert Einstein in disguise.

The point is, and I’ll use an old poker adage; It’s easy to learn but hard to master.

Why was round the corner gaining ascendency during the 'era'/period of leather balls and before kicking tees?

You: "Why did it take 50 years?"

Me: Because it was hard to learn and there were not professional coaches teaching it.

It was never hard to learn.

They weren’t there because they weren’t needed. John Gray wasn’t the best goalkicker of his era.

Going by your theory, coaching or no coaching, he most certainly should have been.

Why were the union converts so much better on average than the other cumulative average of other goal kickers from the 90's era - (Botica, Crossan, Ridge, Halligan and Schuster average 78.2% for every NRL kick they took combined).

If union converts have not improved goal kicking accuracy - why do most clubs employ Halligan as a goal kicking coach? Or Botica for that matter?

If tee's, as you say, negate the union converts role in hastening the end - can you explain why then why most kickers use a union convert Daryl Halligan designed and patented kicking tee?

If tees, as you say, make goal kicking easier and accurate and if Jack Gibsons was the lead innovator and would have implemented any advantage to secure benefit- why did he not implement the kicking tee?

If union had no role to play can you explain how this is so when union introduced and made tee's compulsory (players at that time preferred sand and were forced to adapt) when sand was the norm in the nswrl? Union did this to save time taken for kicks and were not concerned at the intial reduction in accuracy for goal kickers.

Moronic ranting.

Do you ever stop and re-read what you post?

I think if you do, even you'll agree that you're an idiot.

Can you explain why union had the synthetic ball first? Proof: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006...union.features - League waited until the 90's.

That article proves nothing and you totally ignored the question.

You claimed that Union had the first synthetic ball. That article says that Union had it in the 1980’s.

Where is your proof that Union had the first synthetic ball?

And even if it had it before Rugby League, why do you automatically assume that Rugby League pinched the idea from Union.

Do you understand that there are other codes of Football that ideas are drawn from?

Do you understand that around the corner kicking for example, was drawn from Soccer?

Can you explain why goal kicking was so inaccurate in the NSWRL in the 1980's and start of 1990's but so accurate today without unions influence?

It’s been explained 50 times thickhead.

And as for a few Union players coming to the NSWRL in the early 1990’s, why do you keep referring to it as "Union’s influence"?

Do you hear anyone here claiming that after Tuquiri and Co went to Union that the backline play of the Wallabies was "NRL influenced"?

Tee's - no. Union convert Halligan was the driving force behind those first being used, and his tee is still widely used today.

So?

How many kicks did Cronin have using a tee and synthetic ball?

Synthetic balls? No - Union had those first, but were kicking mightily fine round the corner before that with leather. A Johns could spend a year kicking at a lowly 60% with synthetic balls and dramatically rise the next year with coaching - hmmm maybe we've found something....

So, what year did they start using synthetic balls in the NSWRL/NRL?

Without that information your argument doesn’t exist.

Grounds? Well it doesn't take a lot of balance to kick a ball and not fall over. And when Ridge when he converted was far superior on the same grounds with a leather ball. Did the grounds all massively improve in 4 years?

Ridge did not play in the same eras as Mick Cronin. Ridge played his first game 5 years after Cronin retired. The changes from the mid-1980’s to the early 1990’s in ground quality was more than minor. Parramatta Stadium alone made quite a difference.

How many games did Ridge play at Cumberland Oval with a leather ball and no kicking tee?

The answer is 0.

Can you explain why below average players like Crossan or Schuster were signed if not for goal kicking? If you agree they are below average, why would NSWRL need to sign union converts to goal kick?

Try answering the questions this time. Jason Taylor - good kicker - what was he shooting in 1990 - like 50%? Yeah - really got it flying before Ridge, not.

Stop talking sh*t.

Was Ridge coaching Jason Taylor at the end of 1990? Halligan? Botica? LOL

Did Taylor not kick goals prior to going into the Magpies NSWRL team?

He was kicking goals long before he went to first grade and the fact that he was chosen to take over the goalkicking in only his second full first grade game should have been a hint.

 

[ANTiLAG]

EA - really answering questions with questions or just totally avoiding my my questions entirely solves nothing. Just answer my questions as best you can - it does not matter if you fail to see the relevance, yet. If you need clarification with a question then I'll help you. Remember - I answered all of yours.

For instance - you're in a complete muddle with Andrew Johns and that article. It says he was kickinng at around 60% before Halligan helped - that is he kicked 64% in the previous season. From then on he averaged 80% until retirement. Now I understand you have difficulties with comprehension, but Im a patient guy. Just calmly this time - try to answer the questions without asking a question. If you need clarification of the question then I will assist you.

Yes that article states Union had the synthetic ball in the 1980's - are you not familiar when League had the synthetic ball? Maybe you should check that out - (I know the answer, already - clue - it was after 1990).

And its not sh*t that Jason Taylor kicked 52% in 1990. Given his continual improvement - he was probably kicking below 50% in the years previous. Although there may have been stage fright on the bgiger stage.http://stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/1990_sc.html

Anyway - I elucidate upon the what's, how's and why's after you answer my questions this time - the reason for this will become apparent in my reply once you have answered the questions satisfactorily.


You may fail to see the relevance of the questions - and it is apparent this is so as you answer a question 'irrelevant'. That is not for you to judge when Im askignt he questions. The purpose will be revealed when you have actually given satisfactory answers to the questions. Although I suspect you your intuition tells you where this is going.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

EA - really answering questions with questions or just totally avoiding my my questions entirely solves nothing.

The answers are there, you don't want to see them.

It's because you're an egomaniac. You don't consider it an answer if it doesn't agree with you.

And also.... pot--->kettle--->black.

Just answer my questions as best you can - it does not matter if you fail to see the relevance, yet.

Open those beadly little things under your eyebrow.

If you need clarification with a question then I'll help you.

If I ever need clarification from the likes of you, I'll punch my own timeclock, happily.

Remember - I answered all of yours.

:lol:

You've gone from psychotic rantings to straight out lying.

Good for you, that's actually an improvement. For you.

Congrats.

For instance - you're in a complete muddle with Andrew Johns and that article.

No, I'm not.

It says he was kickinng at around 60% before Halligan helped

And?

- that is he kicked 64% in the previous season.

So Johns was a 64% goalkicker?

The article was written in 2006.

At the time Halligan started assisting Johns, Johns' career average was nearly 70%. Halligan chose to mention, and not all that well, Johns' average from the season prior to him helping Johns because it made Halligan look better than he was. Strange considering he probably didn't need to do that.

He also said that he and Jason Taylor were "just kickers" and that Johns was the complete package. Halligan was only a kicker, Taylor was a pretty damn good halfback as well. Again, not quite the truth.

From then on he averaged 80% until retirement.

And he averaged 54% in 2004.

Who was responsible for that?

Now I understand you have difficulties with comprehension, but Im a patient guy.

No, you're a pretentious wanker.

I can see where you'd be confused though. If you can get widgee from ouija, you can get patient from pretentious.

Just calmly this time - try to answer the questions without asking a question.

So, it's your rules now is it? LOL

If you need clarification of the question then I will assist you.

If I need clarification, I'll ask a handy pencil, but I'll be happy to pass on its advice to you.

Yes that article states Union had the synthetic ball in the 1980's - are you not familiar when League had the synthetic ball? Maybe you should check that out - (I know the answer, already - clue - it was after 1990).

And?

You just don't get it, period. Whatever point you think you have is worthless.

It just is.

But let's go again shall we?

You have to prove more than just that Rugby Union had a synthetic ball prior to Rugby League, you also have to prove that no other code of Football had it before Rugby Union. You still haven't done the first part, let alone the second.

Off you go.

And its not sh*t that Jason Taylor kicked 52% in 1990.

Of course it is, it's a one off. Like Johns in 2004, Cronin in 1986, Crossan in 1994 etc

He's not the only around the corner gun goalkicker who had a bad first-up year in the NRL/NSWRL is he?

What did Halligan kick at in his first year?

Given his continual improvement - he was probably kicking below 50% in the years previous.

Of course, the Magpies coach at the time, John Bailey, would have thought it was a great idea to give the ball to a sub-50% goalkicker.


The Wests goalkicker prior to Taylor in 1990 was Shaun Devine who was already kicking at under 50%. Lucky Devine got injured and Bailey got to throw that sub-50% gun into the fire... *

* sarcasm font used without permission.

Just for your information, I followed Wests and was a season ticket holder in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

And for your further information, Brendan Tuuta was f**king awesome. Yeah, I know that was irrelevant but it just had to be said.

Although there may have been stage fright on the bgiger stage.http://stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/1990_sc.html

Really?

FFS...

Anyway - I elucidate upon the what's, how's and why's after you answer my questions this time - the reason for this will become apparent in my reply once you have answered the questions satisfactorily.

Will it? lol

You just simply wank on about your own self-importance, it's your raison d'etre.

The actual argument becomes secondary to you proving to yourself that you are a person of great knowledge whose sage advice and fountain of bent information should be embraced by everyone who happens upon it.

Proving to yourself, that's the salient point. The number of people other than you who think you're what you think you are is the number slightly above -1 and slightly below 1.

You may fail to see the relevance of the questions - and it is apparent this is so as you answer a question 'irrelevant'.

oooooh, are you a psychiatrist as well?

I can't wait for the results, I'm wet with anticipation.

That is not for you to judge when Im askignt he questions.

But I did, and I will.

The purpose will be revealed when you have actually given satisfactory answers to the questions.

You said that a couple of times.

You have real self-worth issues.

And you should. ;-)

Although I suspect you your intuition tells you where this is going.

I couldn't care less where this is going.

All I know is that you can't help yourself and I'm going to get the opportunity to belittle, degrade and bag you again, which is why I'll continue to open this thread.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Just answer the questions EA.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Just answer the questions EA.

Those two shiny things under your furrowed brow, are they painted on?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Just answer the questions EA.

Do yourself & us a favour..
Kill Yourself before you bore us all to death.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Do yourself & us a favour..
Kill Yourself before you bore us all to death.

If this thread is not entertaining you Phil, go start one that does

 

[ANTiLAG]

Those two shiny things under your furrowed brow, are they painted on?

So I take it you asking questions and calling me a moron among other colourful adjectives is your answer to any question too difficult for you to answer? Dear oh Dear.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

So I take it you asking questions and calling me a moron among other colourful adjectives is your answer to any question too difficult for you to answer? Dear oh Dear.

Did I call you a moron?

How offensive that must be to one of the great minds of the 21st century. Sheldon Cooper you aint...

I'd apologise unreservedly if it weren't, well, true.

Still, you tell yourself whatever you have to champ, it's not like you haven't been doing that all along.

As long as you think you're superior to everyone who draws breath, this will continue to be worth kicking. ;-)

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Do yourself & us a favour..
Kill Yourself before you bore us all to death.

Best advice he'll get this year.

 

[ANTiLAG]

EA. still avoiding offering direct answers to the questions?