Both

So here we are with G1 Fogknitting again.

Why can you not just answer a simple question without going round the houses and getting insulting?

Or have you actually in a backhanded way admitted you were wrong from the Saints stats thread and I missed it?

But just to remind ourselves. Against Saints Kirke was a softcock for doing only 6 carries in the game despite been a sub on the day. His defence was praised by others, but you put that down purely to the fact he was a lazy softcock from doing the carries.

Forget last week this been repeated by Bailey. I have now asked you about Clarkson. In this game he did 5 carries. Now you say you can't make comments without making observations whilst watching the game. Yet at the very very same time you have another go at Kirke despite admitting you were not there.



Lets remind ourselves:

Against Saints Kirkes Stats thay you had a go at were, 47 metres off 6 carries, 21 tackles with no misses, no errors and no penalties.

Against Huddersfield Clarksons stats were, 52 metres off 5 carries (which included 25 metres for the try from Sinfields pass), 27 tackles with 2 misses, no errors and no penalties.

Not a lot to choose between them. I should add here that I am in no way thinking Clarkson had a bad game, just highlighting the usual inconsistencies of a certain poster.

You might want Wheels to bump this again at some point, unless he is still doing that bottom licking impression.

Being.



Bump.

G1 is a lucky boy, have you seen my tongue?

I answered the questions you posted in the very next post. And don't go getting all precious about my insulting tone, hypocrite, because you're the worst for it. Just the other day you said of Brisbane Rhino, a poster who never indulges in any spats and simply comes on here top give a reasoned opinion, that he "might live a long way away but he doesn't have to live in the dark". All because he dared not to share the same bat loony tunes opinion you have.

Other posters have often called you on your hypocrisy when complaining about my tone to STFU with the holier than thou crap.

Now, that said, let's unwind the fog and get back to the discussion.

You've accused me of not answering your question. My bad. I thought I had. This was your post.




Two questions there. You question the relevance to previous weeks and ask me about Clarkson's 5 hit ups. Both were answered in the very next post.



I'll expand on the point I am making about Clarkson. Surely even you can understand the point I make about previous weeks.

I didn't see the game so cannot comment on the quality of Clarkson's hit ups or the quality of his tackles. I did not see how much aggression went into them. I did not see how the collision was dominated. I did not see how he controlled the ruck in each circumstance. All I can see is the raw numbers.

What I did see was the quality of his run for his try. I've never seen kirke hit a ball like that. Also, Kirke has now been a 1st team regular for five years. Clarkson is a kid who made his debut this year. Should they be comparable?

If you've seen the Clarkson try, I assume you've also now seen his and Buderus' initial tackle on Larne Patrick for his try?

Having commented on McShane's leaky defence at Hull KR it would be hypocritical of me not to also highlight that attempt by the first choice hooker.

Agreed it was a bad miss, maybe brought about through having to play when not fully fit due to his deputy (Diskin) not being fit & the then replacement/back-up hooker not being deemed good enough to play for the full 80 minutes or even a decent proportion thereof?

Forget it tvoc. It is yet another week where Gareth is been shown up.

If he just came out and admitted he got it wrong in the Saints stats thread, and then actually started posting things consistently, it could be let go.

But he just digs his hole more and more, and I sit here smugly laughing.



I have no idea what the rest of his post about insults its because it is just rubbish. Insults are personal not common phrases. He would do well to read and compare properly in future.

I know it is a bit of a come down to go from self proclaimed alpha male to runt of the litter.

I did, not good at all.

I thought about starting a thread asking what McShane will have learned from watching Buderus do that? It was followed up by equally poor efforts from Hall and Smith.

Still, Clarkson is a promising kid finding his feet in the 1st team and looking good doing so. Many posters on here will happily stick the knife in him for that miss yet find a plethora of reasons to forgive the vastly more experienced, vastly more experienced Buderus for his abysmal effort.

It's either "has been" or "is being" and neither are occurring sunshine. Don't forget just yesterday you were confusing Wheels obvious intentions. It's clear your a fool with little comprehension.

I've repeatedly asked you what i got wrong. You just knit more fog.

I can imagine you do sit there laughing to yourself. Do you rock back and forth.

Still, it's nice to have a good laugh. If anyone has the Phil Daly thread I could use one.

Of course you NEVER resort to insults. You complain about mine but never indulge in them yourself do you? Except of course in your very next line.

Hypocrite.

I'll just take it as you have admitted wrong then sweetie, and hope you learn from it. Much easier than reading drivel.

You were looking for the word "being" in there. However, you would have typed "been", given that you're a buffoon.

incredibly, by the time you had posted, that had already happened ....



seemingly it was Diskins fault!

In your failed efforts to try and be funny, you missed off the import part of Old Fellars post, which is that he was asking a question with a question mark at the end. Rather than making a statment.

We still on the Larne Patrick try? Why was Hall defending on the Leeds right .... and why was he wearing Brett Delaney's shirt?

no i didn't, I used the basis for his question

you should stick to working on the basics like "been/being", or even getting the original posters name correct; what you are trying to do here is way too advanced for you

So when Old Feller posted this



And you cut it down to this



You wern't just trying to be funny and kiss bottom?

You can't see the big difference to your post where you stated that Old Feller was blaming the man of the matches missed tackle on Diskin, when in fact he was asking a question as to whether he was fit due to not having a back up to play?

Yes.

You make a good point. Didn't see it live, one quick view last night on SLTV. Guess it was Delaney.

can you not see even the slightest irony, given the ongoing, lengthy and repetitive debate about hookers on here, that when our "man of the match" hooker misses a bad tackle in a game Diskins name is brought into a potential explanation?

you really can't see that?

he's fit enough to play, and win man of the match, but one bad miss is maybe down to his deputy (Diskin) not being fit

its really not worth the effort chief, have you had an irony/humour bypass, or has all this fog knitting left you unable to separate planet earth from planet gotcha?

No Danny, all I can see is you having another go under another alias. The fact remains that Old Feller asked a question, he didn't make a statment, however you want to try and make it.

Had he actually said "Did Buderus only miss that tackle becuase of Diskin" then you would have had a valid point. But when somebody questions his fitness and asked a question to the rest of the posters as to whether he was playing because of the lack of backup, how can that be described as blaming somebody?

i don't know. hull away in the cup was a cracker.

Clarkson ran an impressive angle possibly designed to commit outside defenders and prevent them sliding out towards the wing, giving Sinfield the option of a second man play behind the runner/dummy runner.

The pass was slightly behind Clarkson which raised a query in my mind as to who was the intended recipient. I still think it was intended for Clarkson.

Kirke made a good run against Wigan at home last year. I remember cause its the only game I've been able to get to live in the last 10 years. He did get hurt somehow in the process and although it somehow ended up a try it looked odds on a dropped ball.

Quote ="King Whino"can you not see even the slightest irony, given the ongoing, lengthy and repetitive debate about hookers on here, that when our "man of the match" hooker misses a bad tackle in a game Diskins name is brought into a potential explanation? you really can't see that? he's fit enough to play, and win man of the match, but one bad miss is maybe down to his deputy (Diskin) not being fit its really not worth the effort chief, have you had an irony/humour bypass, or has all this fog knitting left you unable to separate planet earth from planet gotcha?'" I did not blame Diskin but merely stated the fact that in my opinion Buderus was only playing due to the injury situation at the club & that may go some way to explaining a bad miss (that I acknowledged in my initial post) towards the end of the game. Unlike some on here I have no agenda for or against any of the players but am interested in fair & balanced comment. I would refer to the article below for Buderus' view on the matter. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6429839.jp You may say, well he would say that wouldn't he. I know who's comments I respect.

Quote ="King Whino"can you not see even the slightest irony, given the ongoing, lengthy and repetitive debate about hookers on here, that when our "man of the match" hooker misses a bad tackle in a game Diskins name is brought into a potential explanation? you really can't see that? he's fit enough to play, and win man of the match, but one bad miss is maybe down to his deputy (Diskin) not being fit its really not worth the effort chief, have you had an irony/humour bypass, or has all this fog knitting left you unable to separate planet earth from planet gotcha?'" I did not blame Diskin but merely stated the fact that in my opinion Buderus was only playing due to the injury situation at the club & that may go some way to explaining a bad miss (that I acknowledged in my initial post) towards the end of the game. Unlike some on here I have no agenda for or against any of the players but am interested in fair & balanced comment. I would refer to the article below for Buderus' view on the matter. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6429839.jp You may say, well he would say that wouldn't he. I know who's comments I respect.

The injury was probably 'shock' but yes it did end up in a Leeds try and yes there was a question mark over whether Kirke's offload was touched forward by Donald (similar to the McGuire one V St Helens recently) before he collected to send Burrow over to score.

The video referee (Phil Bentham IIRC) made the correct call though.