I can't, but he will, that's all you'll see worth remembering from 'The Rig'

Well thanks for that. Hows that stat meaningless? His career started in 02, not 07, but if you want to be selective and just look at those latest ones, instead of the mans whole average career then that's your call.

You're talking poo. Hall's never been class, Fard, he never will be, he'll always be average, as you are seeing at the moment. Average performances from an average player, that's just what he is, and how he has been most of his career.

I know you can't, I suppose at least we've made a bit of progress, if you admit that your claim is actually based on no evidence.


Interesting debating style. You could just admit you don't [ihave[/i a counter-argument instead of resorting to more rudeness to try to mask the fact.

Whatever you think of Hall at least he's staying fit at the moment!

Aarrrgh!! Now you've done it

My argument is the same as its been all along, that Hall has been average most of his career.

The fact that he's had trouble breaking into a 1st team for the majority of it thus far is all the evidence I need. Thank you please.

No, it hasn't. on Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 9:29 pm you posted that:

So at least then, you seemed to grasp the point; which is, Hall did not in his earlier career get a regular spot in first grade; (so you could I suppose fairly say he was below average); but then, obviously, he must have improved a lot, got very good, and the position has been completely turned on his head for the 3 years before we signed him, because he then no longer had any trouble getting a regular spot, even competing with the likes of Menzies.

So he can't have been "average most of his career". There seems to be a very clear, and very obvious, and very significant and substantial improvement. The Hall that won a Grand Final in 2009 is a greatly improved Hall from the one that started in the NRL several years earlier. The Hall that played for Manly was no average player and it doesn't help you to keep repeating that he was, because anyone can see that's illogical. And you're implying a plateau of averageness all his career, when anyone can see that in reality it has been a steady rise into a very good and very highly rated player.

I made the point that

That was what we signed. He might have been average years ago when he signed for Sydney. He might have had mumps when he was a nipper, too, which would be equally irrelevant.

There is thus simply no case to be made that Hall was "average" between 2007-09 when he played 65 games for Manly and got a winner's GF ring and if you disagree then you're just wrong, simple as. And as 65 out of 96 is roughly two-thirds, you are also wrong that he has been "average most of his career". Unless you also disagree that 65 is more than 50% of 96, which I am sure you are also capable of arguing.

And whether he plays good, awful or blindingly brilliant for us won't alter any of those facts.

Is it about the tash?

No. Every player should have a tash.
[urlhttp://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/images/stampede/28.jpg[/url

If you looked as scary as Karl, I wouldn't disagree with any of your posts.

Hall has played 96 1st grade games or whatever, in almost 9 year of a pro career. The rest has been in reserve grade, that's a sign of an average player, Fard. Why, because he hasnt been good enough to secure a spot for most of his career. Why, because he's average, simply.

2007 - 2009 - 65 gmes
2002 - 2007 - 31 games

Therefore for the majority of it has been spent languising in the lower grades and not 1st grade, which sadly for him and your daft argument proves his averagenes over the past 8-9 years.

Stop being such a silly billy because it's you who is wrong, simple as.

Just imagine him with fulltime superleague training!

On the same note i bet you think Orfords crap due to his lack of State of Origin games and playing for Australia?

If Orford had managed just over 100 1st grade games in 9 years of a pro rugby career, then I would, on the same note.

Leopards and spots, eh?


Easy for you to say, but WTF are you talking about?




So now you admit that however good a player is NOW, you base your opinion not on how good he has become, but for some strange reason on something as arbitrary as his average number of games per year to date. Therefore by your 'logic' Lockyer may look like a genius now, but if he had managed just over 100 1st grade games in 9 years of a pro rugby career, that would mean he was "average", 'on the same note'. Is that it? That the best 'argument' you got?



Stop digging, you look stupid enough already.

How good he has become. lol, Haven't you been watching recently, he's pants, like he always has been.

Good players like Lockyer dont play a pathetic number of games over nearly 9 years because they are the players that there coaches always want in the team. PLayers that struggle to get in 1st grade do. You know, average ones like Glenn Hall?

Sam Burgess played no first team games at all between 1996 and 2005. Average.

Paul Deacon played hundreds.

WOW, What a pathetic post.

Totally pwned by af

Pffft. AF couldn't pwn me, same as you cant.

On the same note the Burgess twins have never played a fist grade match, god they must be crap

How long have they been in 1st grade again?

Ok you got me



Just out of intrest, did you think Paul Anderson was a good player?

Did you think like me the older he got the better he was?

If yes just look at his stats pre his Bradford and Saints days and then tell me again how relivent his lack of first grade footy was early in his cereer!

What a short memory you have, though I don't blame you wiping it. Save to point out that the fool who proclaims he can't be owned invariably just [ihas[/i been, this is in danger of degenerating into yah boo due to your pantomime debate standards, so we'll leave it there.

Errr, no I haven't. AF isn't capable, nor are you.