vs. Weagles - Game night thread

[FightingFury]

Q and A with Shane Tuck:

HS: What was the plan with Cox?

ST:We wanted Ray Hall to go with him because Cox has a massive engine.He can run all day.Rays' also got a pretty good fitness base,so we thought we'd do that and have Simmo (Troy Simmonds) just go with him in the ruck.

Source: page 53 Monday Herald-Sun April 17 2006.

 

[Redford]

Q and A with Shane Tuck:

HS: What was the plan with Cox?

ST:We wanted Ray Hall to go with him because Cox has a massive engine.He can run all day.Rays' also got a pretty good fitness base,so we thought we'd do that and have Simmo (Troy Simmonds) just go with him in the ruck.

Source: page 53 Monday Herald-Sun April 17 2006.

Thank you Good Lord ! Thank you ! Or in this case thank you Bubbles !

What have I been saying all along ? I’ve consistently said that Gumpus started at CHF with Hunter being his direct opponent and then followed Cox into the forward line. This can fit pretty well with the above I reckon.

On the other hand, how could Gumpuswire’s latest version of events (bearing in mind he’s changed it several times now) possibly be correct ? How does, according to Gumpuswire, Gumpus manage to play “the majority as a loose man across half back” when Tuck has just said that Gumpus goes with Cox when he’s not in the ruck ? You can’t play loose if you’re going with someone !!!

And if that’s not enough to put Gumpuswire’s latest incorrect version of events completely to rest then this certainly is:

Quote: Terry Wallace in reference to Gumpus.

"We had him run around with Cox just because he had the motor to go with him. “

Source: Advertiser Adelaide, Australia - 16 Apr 2006

That’s it for me. My work is done here ! If Gumpuswire now wants to argue his version of events with the version of the actual players and the coach, then I’ll leave him to it !!!

Good night ! Er…day I mean. ;D

 

[Ready]

I haven't thought about this for years but,  free kicks and kick-ins never used to be counted statistically as 'kicks for' in the stat count, did they?
And if they weren't when did it change?

A free kick is recorded as a kick (or handball if that's what you do with it). The reason for this is that you are being rewarded for your good play, for example by chasing someone and applying a correct tackle, resulting in your opponent being pinged for holding the ball. Alternatively you may be the beneficiary of wilful stupidity by your opponent, but that's the luck of the draw. (For example the ruckman who gets the free kick when a fifth bloke on the opposing side runs into the centre square before the bounce.)

I'm not sure how things used to be or when they changed. A kick-in is not recorded as a possession unless the player kicks it to himself and plays on. Any subsequent kick or handball is then recorded.

 

[Tigerdog]

Thanks for the clarification Ready. :clap

 

[Rayzorwire]

Q and A with Shane Tuck:

HS: What was the plan with Cox?

ST:We wanted Ray Hall to go with him because Cox has a massive engine.He can run all day.Rays' also got a pretty good fitness base,so we thought we'd do that and have Simmo (Troy Simmonds) just go with him in the ruck.

Source: page 53 Monday Herald-Sun April 17 2006.

Thank you Good Lord ! Thank you ! Or in this case thank you Bubbles !

What have I been saying all along ? I’ve consistently said that Gumpus started at CHF with Hunter being his direct opponent and then followed Cox into the forward line. This can fit pretty well with the above I reckon.

On the other hand, how could Gumpuswire’s latest version of events (bearing in mind he’s changed it several times now) possibly be correct ? How does, according to Gumpuswire, Gumpus manage to play “the majority as a loose man across half back” when Tuck has just said that Gumpus goes with Cox when he’s not in the ruck ? You can’t play loose if you’re going with someone !!!

And if that’s not enough to put Gumpuswire’s latest incorrect version of events completely to rest then this certainly is:

Quote: Terry Wallace in reference to Gumpus.

"We had him run around with Cox just because he had the motor to go with him. “

Of course he did at times - but that's not the issue is it? The issue is where and when Cox got his possessions, where and when Hunter got his possessions. Cox got the vast majority of his possessions up until the third quarter in the back half playing loose. Hall wasn't within cooee of him...which is why you would rather avoid yet another in a growing list of inconvenient questions: "I challenge you to highlight a single time Hall was on Cox when he got a possession in the first half..."...all those game notes, but all you can do is dodge and avoid. Clear examples of Hall running off Hunter back into defense...all you can do is dodge and avoid.

Do you think it's not obvious by now Red Ford? You tried to make a case and you've failed (not through lack of trying), you're not even trying anymore because you know full well I'm right - the best you can do is try to sow confusion which was clarified long ago and make more strawman arguments. If I was wrong I'd admit you're right...I've seen the game three times now and I'd much rather be honest than be the opposite defending Rayzor against a Brownlow medal favourite winning possessions on him and a pretty classy CHF/CHB doing the same - but the fact is Hunter won very few and Cox got his first with Hall within bull's roar of him with 3 minutes to go in the third quarter. Until that point Hall had spent time on him, but Cox hadn't won a possession - he would have had he been allowed to take his free kick rather than the advantage rule being paid.

Like I said mate, you and I and anyone else who actually watches the game knows the truth (and it will be replayed for many years!)...they will see Cox picking up all his possessions until the end of the third quarter with Hall nowhere near him, they will see Hunter getting the bulk of his possessions with Simmonds, Pettifer, Kellaway or Hyde on him...they will see Hall getting possessions loose in defense and playing loose in front of marking contests.

You know the truth and the footage can't lie. I could just as easily defend Hall quite well on the basis that playing the role he did is no easy task returning from injury - but I don't need to because the footage backs up my point 100% and totally discredits your assertion that both Cox and Hunter won a stack of possessions on him. I've been right about that point since the first post and all you can do is bring up every side issue possible, avoid straight questions, and pretend there's confusion where there isn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers Ready...the free kick one didn't make sense to me - the kick-in does...I was wrong.

 

[Redford]

Q and A with Shane Tuck:

HS: What was the plan with Cox?

ST:We wanted Ray Hall to go with him because Cox has a massive engine.He can run all day.Rays' also got a pretty good fitness base,so we thought we'd do that and have Simmo (Troy Simmonds) just go with him in the ruck.

Source: page 53 Monday Herald-Sun April 17 2006.

Thank you Good Lord ! Thank you ! Or in this case thank you Bubbles !

What have I been saying all along ? I’ve consistently said that Gumpus started at CHF with Hunter being his direct opponent and then followed Cox into the forward line. This can fit pretty well with the above I reckon.

On the other hand, how could Gumpuswire’s latest version of events (bearing in mind he’s changed it several times now) possibly be correct ? How does, according to Gumpuswire, Gumpus manage to play “the majority as a loose man across half back” when Tuck has just said that Gumpus goes with Cox when he’s not in the ruck ? You can’t play loose if you’re going with someone !!!

And if that’s not enough to put Gumpuswire’s latest incorrect version of events completely to rest then this certainly is:

Quote: Terry Wallace in reference to Gumpus.

"We had him run around with Cox just because he had the motor to go with him. “

Of course he did at times - but that's not the issue is it? The issue is where and when Cox got his possessions, where and when Hunter got his possessions. Cox got the vast majority of his possessions up until the third quarter in the back half playing loose. Hall wasn't within cooee of him...which is why you would rather avoid yet another in a growing list of inconvenient questions: "I challenge you to highlight a single time Hall was on Cox when he got a possession in the first half..."...all those game notes, but all you can do is dodge and avoid. Clear examples of Hall running off Hunter back into defense...all you can do is dodge and avoid.

Do you think it's not obvious by now Red Ford? You tried to make a case and you've failed (not through lack of trying), you're not even trying anymore because you know full well I'm right - the best you can do is try to sow confusion which was clarified long ago and make more strawman arguments. If I was wrong I'd admit you're right...I've seen the game three times now and I'd much rather be honest than be the opposite defending Rayzor against a Brownlow medal favourite winning possessions on him and a pretty classy CHF/CHB doing the same - but the fact is Hunter won very few and Cox got his first with Hall within bull's roar of him with 3 minutes to go in the third quarter. Until that point Hall had spent time on him, but Cox hadn't won a possession - he would have had he been allowed to take his free kick rather than the advantage rule being paid.

Like I said mate, you and I and anyone else who actually watches the game knows the truth (and it will be replayed for many years!)...they will see Cox picking up all his possessions until the end of the third quarter with Hall nowhere near him, they will see Hunter getting the bulk of his possessions with Simmonds, Pettifer, Kellaway or Hyde on him...they will see Hall getting possessions loose in defense and playing loose in front of marking contests.

You know the truth and the footage can't lie. I could just as easily defend Hall quite well on the basis that playing the role he did is no easy task returning from injury - but I don't need to because the footage backs up my point 100% and totally discredits your assertion that both Cox and Hunter won a stack of possessions on him. I've been right about that point since the first post and all you can do is bring up every side issue possible, avoid straight questions, and pretend there's confusion where there isn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers Ready...the free kick one didn't make sense to me - the kick-in does...I was wrong.

As I say, your version of events is now in complete contrast with the players and the coach, and with that, my work is done.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Ok mate - I'm happy to move on.

But I will say again, my version contrasts with nothing Wallace or Tuck said - the issue is possessions.

 

[Jools]

Ok mate - I'm happy to move on.

Phew.........the game was 4 days ago, let's all move on.

 

[Rosy]

Phew.........the game was 4 days ago, let's all move on.

I wonder if anyone other than Redders and Rayzor actually read and made sense of it all?

 

[stripes17]

Too complicated for me. I just skim through and read the end of each post :hihi

 

[gustiger12]

Bit like the old Iraqi Minister of Interior.

 

[TigerForce]

Phew.........the game was 4 days ago, let's all move on.

I wonder if anyone other than Redders and Rayzor actually read and made sense of it all? 

Place a word limit Rosy. :hihi