He didn't change his approach. He said 'sustained injury crisis' or similar many times and waaaay before he omitted it in the post you chose to jump on. If anyone is making things up, it's you.

In the time it's taken to write all these responses you could have looked up all these times Saints played during a sustained injury crisis. Well, actually you couldn't because it never happened. So what exactly are you supposed to be "proving"?*


*Please don't say "that NK said you NEVER played with 5 or more missing". You absolutely know that's not what is being discussed in this thread and you're beginning to sound like a child.

Then we (along with NK) agree. What are you arguing about?

I don't know that at all. I haven't read the whole thread. I saw a comment that I knew to be incorrect and corrected it. I don't see what the big fuss is.

I am not arguing with anyone. NK was passing something off as fact that I knew to be untrue. I said as much. And people don't like it.

I agree Saints haven't had a sustained period missing 5 or more players. I have never claimed otherwise. In fact I haven't made any claims that are untrue.

What are you arguing about?

But you never said he could be either! You worded it in such a way as to suggest he couldn't be by quoting how he'd played only as a bench hooker. Hence my response.

That said, I'm more than happy to concede this point if that wasn't your intention. However would you like to address the points raised regarding Hopoate not being a fullback in the present rather than the past? Your response would be far more interesting than your constant fixation on semantics.

I wouldn’t mind, he cut me off at 5, because I actually said 5,6,7+ but he can have his one game with 5.

I’m confused what he/she wants!

An admittance they have had a game with 5+ players missing through injury? They’ve had it numerous times now.

Me to say they’ve had an injury crisis in the last four and a bit years? Well I can’t do that as I’d be lying.

Saints have been very lucky with injuries and it’s played a big part in their success.

The end.

You must drive your husband/wife/partner up the wall

I can answer that very simply. I'm arguing because you're misinformed and I'm trying to put you right. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that NK has said 'sustained injury crisis' many, many times before the post you jumped on. You're deliberately derailing the thread in my opinion. Let it go.

Instead of arguing that he didn't say it IN THAT ONE INSTANCE, why not just discuss the topic in good faith?

Yes I said he had only played as a bench hooker because NK was happy to use that as evidence of him being a viable option there. But Hopoate's 100 appearances for club and country wasn't evidence enough of his viability. Surely you can see my point there.



Hopoate wouldn't be my first or even 2nd choice to play at 1 for us now, no. But again, I never claimed otherwise. He did however play most of the 2020 season ther so it's hardly like me claiming Sironen is a 6 because he played there 10 years ago. It's relatively recent that Hopoate has played 1.

Can't disagree there haha

Look I know I'm like a dog with a bone at times and I can be a pedantic so and so. But you did say we had never been without 5 players, I knew we had and so I proved as much. It wasn't my intention for a long drawn out debacle that it's become.

I know Saints haven't had a sustained perioid with multiple injuries and I have never claimed that. But we haven't been completely without injuries too which is what you like to imply.

I think we have both got our points across enough times now to know where each other is coming from.

I am not ignoring it. I have acknowledged several times that he is right in saying we haven't had a prolonged period where we had several missing. And I am not attempting to derail anything. I was just putting it out there that there have been occasions where we have been missing a few, as NK was implying it had NEVER happened.

I am happy to let it go and move on but if people either misquote me or accuse me of being ignorant or derailing threads I will respond.

If you haven't read the thread then you don't "know" anything. Every statement has a context. You weren't aware of the context in this case so your assumption that you "knew" something was incorrect. For someone so obsessed with semantics I thought you would have known this.

semantics
/sɪˈmantɪks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

Stop trying to be a smart a*se.. NK said we had never been without so many, I said we have. That really is the start and end of it. For someone who has accused me of derailing a thread, posting condescending nonsense like this is a little bit hypocritical.

Let's move on shall we?

But you are and I'm sure you know it. This very post is the latest example. I've asked you to comment on Hopoate as fullback now as opposed to in the past which (once again) you've chosen to ignore whilst simultaneously focussing on one word "never" taken out of context.

Explain how that isn't derailing?

I have answered you about Hopoate. I think in your fury to reply and win a point you have skimmed over it.

I am not derailing anything. I picked up on something NK said and I argued the point. That's it, the end of it. Why are you still going on? If you don't like threads derailing then leave it.

I'm not being a smart a*se or anything else. That explains why your obsessing on the statement you have was incorrect as you didn't know the context. You can't have it both ways mate. If you're insisting you're righting a wrong then you de facto invite the same to be applied to your own statements. Do you disagree?

NK said it was a fact we had never been without 5, 6 or 7 players. He didn't mention for how long in the comment I responded to. I picked up on that and argued the point and proved that in fact we had. I have since gone on to say that I agree we haven't been without players for a sustained period.

There are only so many times I can't type those same words. That really is it. Like I keep saying, if you don't want the thread derailing, then leave it.

You did answer but there were so many replies it skipped a page. My apologies for missing it.

So from your answer you agree that NK had a point when not considering Hopoate a viable option at fullback now?

I love the way you answer and then tell others to leave it!



Tell you what; I'll answer this once then we can both leave it, hey?



Firstly you haven't answered anything. You gave 2 examples, both of which actually proved NK's point. The first one has 4 first teamers missing, not 5 and the 2nd one you lost (which was exactly the point being made in the first place). You've disproved nothing so far

Secondly, by your own admission, you haven't read the thread so have no context with which to show his statement as wrong anyway. If you had read the thread you'll have known that it related to a sustained period of injury so you 'proving' that NK was wrong was totally unnecessary.

There. I've had the last say. Let's leave it now, shall we?

No I don't. He wouldn't be 1st choice but could still slot in comfortably in my opinion. He did play there for a spell in the friendly v Leigh and looked good to be fair. So I think when discussing depth and versatility, Hopoate would be a more than adequate back up to Welsby.

Ok. I can't say I know enough about him now to have a strong opinion either way. If you think there wouldn't be a big drop off in quality I'm more than happy to take your word for it.

I see no- one has mentioned that we were without 5 injured players yesterday and still won.

No Knowles, Lees, Walmsley, Matautia or Hopoate

After last week's defeat I assumed Knowles was dropped?

Wingfield played though, so all is well



Bet it was as a good day out that yesterday. Pretty jealous with that draw for Saints but not as much on the next one.

Against championship opposition and you were poor. Still, you did manage to put a similar amount of points on Haven as the mighty Sheffield Eagles did the week before so we can conclude that, without those players mentioned you're at least as good as them