The Fox Report - Round 3

[TheOptimist]

I don't think that we were "fortunate" per se. In the end, we took what was on offer. It was a deliberate decision.

It wasn't like... well what the heck, MG has been delisted so let's take a u punt.

It was a deliberate decision based on the coach's philoosophy on the role of ruckmen.

That we got them cheap was a bonus. King only got delisted due to salary cap issues, and I dare say it that the Cats are rgereeting this after Blake's performance in the GF.

I also out it that they are now fit due to proper fitness management, which in King's case began in 07 with Geelong.

[BringBackMadDog]

A backmen, who according to the official statisticians at the game, made 10 errors and gave away 3 free-kicks, cannot have played very well.

Who said he played poorly?

I think you did, anyway I did watch the game live and the replay twice, and with the exception of the stupid free kick in the first quarter Blake was his usual no nonsense, reliable, 100% effort self and I'll take that every day of the week

[rodgerfox]

It wasn't like... well what the heck, MG has been delisted so let's take a u punt.

It was a deliberate decision based on the coach's philoosophy on the role of ruckmen.

What if Geelong and West Coast didn't delist them?

[rodgerfox]

A backmen, who according to the official statisticians at the game, made 10 errors and gave away 3 free-kicks, cannot have played very well.

Who said he played poorly?

I think you did, anyway I did watch the game live and the replay twice, and with the exception of the stupid free kick in the first quarter Blake was his usual no nonsense, reliable, 100% effort self and I'll take that every day of the week

Has the world gone mad??

I said he couldn't have played 'very well' if he's given away 3 frees and made 10 errors. You've even quoted that yourself???!!


Is it that hard to actually read what I write?

[HarveysDeciple]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

you stated "he cannot have played very well"

Which suggests he didn't play well, and hence played poorly..

You certainly implied it.

[yipper]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

You did, those of us who have seen the game say he played a good game. You have been the one saying different:

"a backmen who makes 10 errors and gives away 3 free kicks cannot have played well"

Even though you haven't seen the game!!

[rodgerfox]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

you stated "he cannot have played very well"

Which suggests he didn't play well, and hence played poorly..

You certainly implied it.

I would have though that by saying he cannot have played very well, I meant he cannot have played very well.

To be frank, I simply cannot see how it can mean anything else???

I also don't see how if someone said he didn't play well, that directly equates to him playing poorly either.

[HarveysDeciple]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

You did, those of us who have seen the game say he played a good game. You have been the one saying different:

"a backmen who makes 10 errors and gives away 3 free kicks cannot have played well"

Even though you haven't seen the game!!

that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all". Well don't say it then

[rodgerfox]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

You did, those of us who have seen the game say he played a good game. You have been the one saying different:

"a backmen who makes 10 errors and gives away 3 free kicks cannot have played well"

Even though you haven't seen the game!!

Are you simple? Or illiterate?


Try reading what I posted again. Slowly this time.


Seriously.

[HarveysDeciple]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

you stated "he cannot have played very well"

Which suggests he didn't play well, and hence played poorly..

You certainly implied it.

I would have though that by saying he cannot have played very well, I meant he cannot have played very well.

To be frank, I simply cannot see how it can mean anything else???

I also don't see how if someone said he didn't play well, that directly equates to him playing poorly either.

well that is bizarre.

If you don't play well, then what do you play?

[HarveysDeciple]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

You did, those of us who have seen the game say he played a good game. You have been the one saying different:

"a backmen who makes 10 errors and gives away 3 free kicks cannot have played well"

Even though you haven't seen the game!!

Are you simple? Or illiterate?


Try reading what I posted again. Slowly this time.


Seriously.

Cut the personal insult (oh wait, no doubt you didn't actually say that:-P).

Looks like he is reading what everyone else is reading.

[rodgerfox]

that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all". Well don't say it then

When have I ever said that?

If I meant something, I'd say it. If I don't mean something, then I don't say it.

[rodgerfox]

well that is bizarre.

If you don't play well, then what do you play?

Servicable.

Contributed.

Played Ok.


Do you really think that every player, every week either plays well or plays poorly?

[yipper]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

you stated "he cannot have played very well"

Which suggests he didn't play well, and hence played poorly..

You certainly implied it.

I would have though that by saying he cannot have played very well, I meant he cannot have played very well.

To be frank, I simply cannot see how it can mean anything else???

I also don't see how if someone said he didn't play well, that directly equates to him playing poorly either.

What a complete and total cop out. You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out.

[rodgerfox]

Cut the personal insult (oh wait, no doubt you didn't actually say that:-P).

Looks like he is reading what everyone else is reading.

I actually asked a question. Didn't make a statement at all, so I hardly see how that can be an insult??

Unless the answer is 'yes', then I guess it could be seen as insulting.


If everyone's reading this bit where I said he played poorly, can you please show me where it is?

Becuase I certainly can't see it.

[HarveysDeciple]

Cut the personal insult (oh wait, no doubt you didn't actually say that:-P).

Looks like he is reading what everyone else is reading.

I actually asked a question. Didn't make a statement at all, so I hardly see how that can be an insult??

Unless the answer is 'yes', then I guess it could be seen as insulting.


If everyone's reading this bit where I said he played poorly, can you please show me where it is?

Becuase I certainly can't see it.

Lol. I knew you'd find a way to suggest that isn't insulting. It's hilarious.
If you say something you mean it etc etc.

You cannot argue what you meant by that question. Blind Freddy could read between the lines.

[rodgerfox]

What a complete and total cop out. You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out.

You, and many others are simply guilty of attempting to read between the lines of what I write. Instead of actually reading the words in front of you.

I never said he played poorly.

I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.

What's so hard to understand about that??

[yipper]

Your deciding he played poorly because one stat sheet told you so.

Who said he played poorly?

You did, those of us who have seen the game say he played a good game. You have been the one saying different:

"a backmen who makes 10 errors and gives away 3 free kicks cannot have played well"

Even though you haven't seen the game!!

Are you simple? Or illiterate?


Try reading what I posted again. Slowly this time.


Seriously.

And so here we go on our usual way - a few personal insults get thrown out. You are the most predictable poster on here. I can read perfectly well mate, even slowly!! And we have all read the same dribble from you over and over. Get a life you hero.

[HarveysDeciple]

Rodger if I ask you a question?

Aren't you a wanker?

I'm insulting you yeah? of course I am.

So if you ask that question are you simple, or just illiterate? you are insulting them. Plain as day.

[yipper]

What a complete and total cop out. You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out.

You, and many others are simply guilty of attempting to read between the lines of what I write. Instead of actually reading the words in front of you.

I never said he played poorly.

I simply said that I don't think it's possible to play 'very well' as a backman if you make 10 errors and give away 3 frees.

What's so hard to understand about that??

He didn't make 10 errors . Go and watch a game once in awhile!!

[rodgerfox]

And so here we go on our usual way - a few personal insults get thrown out. You are the most predictable poster on here. I can read perfectly well mate, even slowly!! And we have all read the same dribble from you over and over. Get a life you hero.

You're a bit slow.

Here we go??

'a few personal insults' have alrady been thrown out....

-Get a life you hero
-You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out
-that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all".
-dodgy
-NOW please, if you're going to subject us all to your self absorbed drivel
-you have an undying man-crush on GT. He is your boyfriend


Please. If you get sooky over an 'insult' on the internet, can you please lodge a complaint with the mods about the above ones I've copped in the first two pages of this poast before you start grizzling.

[HarveysDeciple]

the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.

Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.

Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.

Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?

[rodgerfox]

the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.

Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.

Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.

Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?

Of course it is. Which is precisely why I didn't make a judgement call that he played poorly.

[rodgerfox]

Rodger if I ask you a question?

Aren't you a wanker?

I'm insulting you yeah? of course I am.

So if you ask that question are you simple, or just illiterate? you are insulting them. Plain as day.

I wouldn't find that insulting.

[HarveysDeciple]

And so here we go on our usual way - a few personal insults get thrown out. You are the most predictable poster on here. I can read perfectly well mate, even slowly!! And we have all read the same dribble from you over and over. Get a life you hero.

You're a bit slow.

Here we go??

'a few personal insults' have alrady been thrown out....

-Get a life you hero
-You are becoming a master at saying something and then back-pedalling your way out
-that's right, rodgerfox the master of making a statement then coming out with "Oh but I didn';t mean that at all".
-dodgy
-NOW please, if you're going to subject us all to your self absorbed drivel
-you have an undying man-crush on GT. He is your boyfriend


Please. If you get sooky over an 'insult' on the internet, can you please lodge a complaint with the mods about the above ones I've copped in the first two pages of this poast before you start grizzling.

It's no coincidence that no -one ever interprets your posts in a manner you deem to be accurate.

Because the meaning of your statement changes depending on what people say, purely for the purpose of being argumentative.

Yet it's just everybody else being simple, not your fault at all