Mossop, Flanny and Farrell have more potential than Hansen or an ageing Bailey.

Coley will always be needed at prop, and who's to say he's as good as a second row as Flanny and Farrell will be a year or so down the line? He has trouble running as it is.

To be honest i am not surprised the irony is lost on you, but i would not speak for others.



Everyone is entitled to there opinion, i think for the reasons i have stated clearly it is not such a bad thing for him to go to grow as a player both you and jack do, I see nothing in your line of reasoning to convince me otherwise which is fair enough.

Why both you and jack get so worked up when someone disagrees with them is beyond me, as is your line of thought on this but there we go.

The notion of running with a lightweight inexperienced backrow with a lightweight frontrow does not in my opinion in any way help us when it comes to winning the forward battle.

Coley and Mossop are props.

Bailey should be gone next season.

All of a sudden we look a bit thin on the ground.

So the notion is if Coley will always be needed at Prop O'Carroll should leave or maybe Davis?

But then they are both young Wigan products,.........

Mossop is a secondrow who will become a Prop. Coley can cover second row if needed.

In your opinion Bailey should be gone next year fair enough and prior to Hock's ban i agreed with you, but again you cannot expect to win the forwards battle with an inexperienced lightweight backrow, given we have such a lightweight frontrow.

As usual I find myself going round in circles whenever you 2 get your heads together, and to be honest i have not the time for it, so feel free to crack on, until I see something that takes the debate forward there is no point in continuing with posting on this topic.

Jonh, please don't rate yourself so highly, that is your problem, no one is getting worked up over anything you say, infact it's the exact opposite, hence why I reassured Jack that you are a pr@tt who likes to argue, thats all you are in all honesty.

Once again you've got it wrong, I have totally no issue with someone disagreeing with me, everyone is entitled to an opinion, it would be a boring forum without discussion! But it's your manner and the way you suddenly become condersending with your attitude to people on he who disagree with your points, I read some of your replies to Jack, same condersending belittling replies you always try to us when someone disgrees.

Relax Jonh and realise, this is only a discussion board.

No one at the Wigan club has said anything about Mossop moving to prop.

Nice of you to even give us the time you have given us so far.

However, in future, please feel free to ignore my posts altogether.

Thanks.

I think you are confusing condecsending with opinion backed up by why i hold this opinion, nothing more nothing less.

To accused of calling people names and then twice in the same thread to be called a pratt by the same posted making the accusation does make me wonder about you.

Who said they did?

In nearly ever post you mention how Mossop will be a prop in the future. I thought you backed up your opinion with facts?

I called you a pratt because of the names and manner you attack people. If you didn't then I wouldn't. Simple really.

At times Jonh you post some solid posts which make sense, your issue seems to be when people disagree with you. What a meal you made of my opinon of wanting to sign Long on a 2yr deal, that was my opinion. P.S I think we would have beaten Wire if Long with at 7 to Sam at 6 in the semi, another one of my opinions.

It is my opinion he will end up as a Prop, time will tell. If you could back an opinion up with 100% facts, it would cease to be an opinion and become a fact.

I say this as i think he is ultimately his build and style is better suited to Prop, also given he has significant game time at Reserve level as a Prop it would indicate that it is a distinct possibility.

Where have i attacked anyone?

You accuse me of calling people names again where?

You clearly wrote how Mossop 'will be a prop' that statement is not a matter of option but a factual comment.

An option doesn't become a fact if backed up by facts Jonh, for example, someone may say Tomkins is a better SR than Bailey then back up their comment with stats facts, then someone will counter that comment with other stat facts to prove Bailey is a better SR, hence a debate.
Follow?

Hence you do not have 100% facts and that is why it remains an opinion.

I do think Mossop will be a prop, i am unsure where the confusion lies.

?

Where are your facts that Mossop will be a prop? its a call without anything to back it up!

The fact that he has spent significant game time in the reserves playing Prop, and also in my opinion he has the game more suited to Prop yet needs time to bed in, in the secondrow, I have mentioned it several times in this thread alone.

This is not a fact it is opinion, held by me.

It looks to me like Jack Kerley has had his usual effect. Cause other people to get into arguments, while he slinks off.

He could start an argument at a peace rally.

Precious as usual, eh?

Give over with the innocent act.

I’ve seen your method up close. You subtly provoke people by calling their opinions ‘tripe’ or whatever, at the same time ignoring any reasoned argument they may present to support their view. When they get annoyed, you respond by making fun of them, accusing them of name-calling, etc. Then a lackey will appear (at one time it would be Charlie Seeling, but I guess anyone will do). He’ll take over the argument and you disappear.

To make sure I don’t fall into a similar trap, and having made my point, I’m vacating this thread. See you in a few weeks, no doubt.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but then again I never have had.

Who is Charlie Seeling.

Paranoia is an illness, for which you can get treatment.

Please use your time away from this thread effectively, by nipping down to the doctors for a check up.

You're welcome.