Who will be 2011 premiers?

[Ulysseus]

This is up there one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen!

So despite Manly dominating, they could only score one try off a kick but this is a positive somehow....LOL...

My memory may be a bit hazy, but was this also not the game where they had a shitload of sets in Saints 20 and came away with nothing?

 

[oval]

My memory may be a bit hazy, but was this also not the game where they had a shitload of sets in Saints 20 and came away with nothing?

That's the one. St George put on a very impressive defensive display that game, and no matter how hard they pushed, Manly could not penetrate the big red V. Thrust after thrust they attacked, probing the wall, but alas - they could not find a hole.

 

[MSIH]

nevermind then, seems saints will just have to belt them.............again................ in the finals to dispell this myth that manly trouble them.
Hell, go back past 2008, their was pwnage from 2005 for f**ks sake.

You've got a good record against us. Your earlier post was still a pile of shit though.

"Even when Manly won the comp in 2008 they still split the result that year, Saints won through the year and to Manly's credit they won when it mattered in the finals."

You beat us in a random regular season comp game at Brookie. Manly embarrassed the Dragons when it mattered.

So the relevance of your comfortable win at WIN earlier this year would be?

 

[SingleSpeed73]

If Manly moved Foran to hooker the premiership would be locked in

Still havent got over my comment that Pearce will prob get moved to hooker in his later career

 

[effnic]

Ridge wasnt held.

 

[saint_marto88]

Ridge wasnt held.

Neither was Trent in 2005 :sarcasm:

 

[firechild]

This is up there one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen!

So despite Manly dominating, they could only score one try off a kick but this is a positive somehow....LOL...

You'd better get your nurse to give you a wipe, you're dribbling. Try reading it again, it was never said that Manly dominated, let me quote it again so you can read it slowly, I'll even put it in bold for you:

Overall it was a very evenly contested match.

 

[Hutty1986]

You've got a good record against us. Your earlier post was still a pile of shit though.

"Even when Manly won the comp in 2008 they still split the result that year, Saints won through the year and to Manly's credit they won when it mattered in the finals."

You beat us in a random regular season comp game at Brookie. Manly embarrassed the Dragons when it mattered.

So the relevance of your comfortable win at WIN earlier this year would be?

The head-to-head record in the past 5-6 years is pretty telling, that's the point. The whole 'can't wait for Manly to have another crack at Saints' line is pretty tired and largely unproven. Both will be there at the business end, we shall see!

 

[Bulldog Force]

Storm got it in the bag this year IMO.

 

[POPEYE]

We are presuming the 'premiers' will be decided on the outcome of one game.

Therefore we have to presume there will be no blunders by the officials.

We have to presume there will be no disastrous injuries before this one game.

Also we can't take into account the 'premiers' may have a hard run up to this one game in the finals.

Then we have to discount that for some inexplicable reason one team might just have an off day.

All that taken into account I pick Manly as the likely so-called 'premiers'.

 

[kurt faulk]

You've got a good record against us. Your earlier post was still a pile of shit though.

"Even when Manly won the comp in 2008 they still split the result that year, Saints won through the year and to Manly's credit they won when it mattered in the finals."

You beat us in a random regular season comp game at Brookie. Manly embarrassed the Dragons when it mattered.

So the relevance of your comfortable win at WIN earlier this year would be?

that was the game where nathan brown, in his infinite wisdom, started ben rogers at 5/8. what chance did the saints have?

let's look at the last 5 years.

2006 - saints demolish manly in the semis. keep them to zero.
2008 - manly beat the saints.
2009 - saints lose in first week of finals. manly get bumped out of the finals.
2010 - saints in second gear demolish manly. keep them to zero.

the saints have knocked out manly from the finals 3 times in 5 years. even when they lose they inflict defeat on the sea birds.

if they meet again this year it will be 4 times out of 6.

.

 

[kurt faulk]

We are presuming the 'premiers' will be decided on the outcome of one game.

Therefore we have to presume there will be no blunders by the officials.

We have to presume there will be no disastrous injuries before this one game.

Also we can't take into account the 'premiers' may have a hard run up to this one game in the finals.

Then we have to discount that for some inexplicable reason one team might just have an off day.

All that taken into account I pick Manly as the likely so-called 'premiers'.

hey grandpa

there are grandfinals now to decide who will be the champs. been that way for 50 years.

deal with it.

.

 

[_Johnsy]

We are presuming the 'premiers' will be decided on the outcome of one game.

Therefore we have to presume there will be no blunders by the officials.

We have to presume there will be no disastrous injuries before this one game.

Also we can't take into account the 'premiers' may have a hard run up to this one game in the finals.

Then we have to discount that for some inexplicable reason one team might just have an off day.

No shyte einstien. FMD that's a pearler.

Have you just realised that the above has been present in every premiership deciding game (Grand Final) since our game started.

It is the way it is, Move on pops.

 

[Shorty]

I love all the arguing about Manly and Saints, it'll be funny if it turns out it isn't either.

 

[POPEYE]

Seems you have conveniently left out the last line . . . says a lot about you.

If I choose to pick a team that I think will be 'premiers' and by so doing apply my reasoning in a cynical manner it is my prerogative.

Not that I give a shit but the high esteem in which you hold the process of arriving at 'premier' is akin to throwing three lots of 'heads' in succession.

 

[St_Jubbsy]

You'd better get your nurse to give you a wipe, you're dribbling. Try reading it again, it was never said that Manly dominated, let me quote it again so you can read it slowly, I'll even put it in bold for you:

Child,

Manly had 56% possession - that is what I was referring to as dominating. They scored one try off a kick.

Hardly a positive sign for later in the year. Dribble yourself.

 

[_Johnsy]

Seems you have conveniently left out the last line . . . says a lot about you.

If I choose to pick a team that I think will be 'premiers' and by so doing apply my reasoning in a cynical manner it is my prerogative.

Not that I give a shit but the high esteem in which you hold the process of arriving at 'premier' is akin to throwing three lots of 'heads' in succession.

I left it out because it had no relevance to the point I was making, simple enough concept for you to grasp pops ?

 

[goosie]

it wont be manly or broncos lol i am ruling both out of winning the premiership. tigers ,storm and warriors will be better for it.

 

[firechild]

Child,

Manly had 56% possession - that is what I was referring to as dominating. They scored one try off a kick.

Hardly a positive sign for later in the year. Dribble yourself.

And the Dragqueens scored one try from a knock on and one from an intercept against the run of play. The fact is it was a fairly close game and not a genuine indicator of much at all. As has been mentioned by others before, Manly beat St Marge last year and the Merge went on to win, Melbourne beat Manly twice in 2008 and Manly went on to thump them 40-0 in the grand final, Melbourne beat Brisbane in 2006 and and Manly beat Melbourne in 2007 before the results were turned around in the grand finals. It means nothing except that the winning team got 2 points on their way to the finals.

 

[POPEYE]

I left it out because it had no relevance to the point I was making, simple enough concept for you to grasp pops ?

Found out long ago that it is an advantage to let the opposition think they have better perception . . . beats getting horizontal