Quote ="DaveO" What question? I have not twisted anything. Show me where I have. '"
The question where i asked you for proof had Tomkins and Ainscough played we would of won but as usual you write loads of paragraphs twisting the words in the hope that the original question put to you will be forgotten.
Quote ="DaveO"You were prepared to speculate about the outcome in your previous post. You said:
"For all you know we could of lost heavily had those 2 played. They could off missed cruicial tackles or dropped cross field bombs handing Hull KR try after try." '"
Yes i was giving you an example of why you cannot say Noble was right or wrong not to play them. I notice you cut out the last part where i said we may of won or we may of lost,who knows? More evidence that you like to twist peoples words to suit your argument.
Quote ="DaveO"So that is going to be your line from now on if a player is absent? You are never going to speculate that if for example Lockers is injured and we lose a game, we may have won if we had the benefit of his defence, because he could have missed tackles or dropped the ball? '"
What are you talking about at all. How would we win a game if Lockers missed tackles or dropped the ball. That just does not make any sense whatsoever.
Quote ="DaveO"No I don't which I thought I explained in the previous post. It's very simple, our attack has looked better with Tomkins in the side than it did on Friday. On Friday without him it looked like it did v Wakey on the first game of the season.
It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude his absence is a reason why it did look worse than when he was in the side. '"
Your argument was not that. Your argument was a typical Noble bashing for not playing him and Ainscough. You implied that had those 2 played we would of won which is nothing but speculation.
Quote ="DaveO" It's just simple logic. We were worse on attack than the week before, so you ask yourself what changed? Is this such a hard concept to grasp? '"
It seems the hardest concept for you to grasp is that it was monsoon conditions on Friday. What did you expect to see Dave flowing ball movement from side to side in those conditions?
Quote ="DaveO"It is not as you keep saying something I am putting forward as concrete proof we would have won but an opinion our attack would have been better with him in the side and I have given my reasons why I think that. '"
So you finally admit theres just as much chance we would of lost the game had those 2 played?
Quote ="DaveO" Now its pretty clear you do not agree with this line of thinking. Why not? Is it because of this again?:-
"For all you know we could of lost heavily had those 2 played. They could off missed cruicial tackles or dropped cross field bombs handing Hull KR try after try." '"
No the reason i do not agree with you is because-
1.the weather meant it was always going to be a scrap
2.you are speculating what might of happened yet the way you started off was in typical anti-Noble fashion trying to point out he got it wrong and you got it right.
Quote ="DaveO" Is that why? If so I will say again you have no reason to think that. You may as well state we would have lost because had they played they would have both got sent off. I on the other hand can point to games we played with them in the side where our attack was better so if you can explain to me why it is unreasonable to think it would have been better on Friday, feel free. '"
Ive told you the 2 reasons above.
Quote ="DaveO"Never one to shy away from the insults are we? It really does you no credit.
Dave '"
Please show me where ive insulted you? I called you a know it all and arrogant. Observations of how you come across rather than insults. If you dont want to be called that then stop posting like your word on everything is final.
