Toovey's post match presser .....it's a classic! http://www.nrl.com/rd-23-press-conf...t4NGx2ZDoaePAQQVHv7MHkSZztPt82AT/default.aspx
What a terrible argument. Apart from the fact that Souths played a lot better and had two of their key players back, Manly could easily have had 4 tries on the board. Sometimes you're unlucky. Which is the sort of argument I hinted at when Easts played them a week later, which you poured scorn on. Why was it a danger game against rebounding opposition for Easts in Rd11 but not for Manly in Rd10? Total hypocrisy. You're saying Manly shouldn't be considered genuine contenders, partly because of their record against the top 4. Aside from the constant lying about your position on Manly with regard to Easts, the Roosters who you consider a genuine chance, have a worse record against the top 4 than what Manly do. For the fifth time, I don't care whether you were skeptical or not. What was the context of that remark? It was EWS saying Manly are a better chance of winning it than Easts - and you concurred. What's the point of lying about it? Honestly, one of your worst posts on this forum, from beginning to end.
Manly's structures in attack always seem to just fall flat. It was being blamed on lack of either Stewart at the start but it's pretty obvious now it's a coaching thing. They don't click like the top sides like the Roosters who have simple go to structures all the time that work. Souths are full of dumb cunts. Too many. They're not gonna beat the Roosters or Melbourne unless they get a minimum of 2 lucky kick tries and the Inglis sweep works perfectly several times. Not gonna happen.
How fucking stupid do you want to look? Why don't you bring up a game from 2006? Brisbane fans don't come on here saying they could beat the Roosters and contain them to only 8 points just because they did it in Rnd 3 or whatever because they have more sense than that.
That seems to be a large part of your analysis on everything this season. Teams butcher tries all the time, you need to create more opportunities than what Manly did, they only managed 2 linebreaks in the whole game. The two tries was representative of what I thought was a pretty uninspiring attacking performance from Manly. I thought it was a danger game because it was the last game the big 3 would play before State of Origin, irrelevant of form I always thought they'd be up for a big game. How is a 2 wins and 2 losses against top 4 sides worse than Manly's record of 1 draw and 4 losses against top 4 sides? Yes, I agreed with Cribb that Manly were a better chance of winning the comp than the Roosters. However that's quite clearly not my point, you inferred that I said they were genuine contenders, so I'll wait for that quote because for someone who's called me a liar twice in that rant so I'm sure that won't be too much of hassle for you to dig up the post? Or is it like that time when I lied about you calling the Roosters a meh team?
The standard of refereeing is pretty much equal to the standard of economy in the dinosaur age. Even if he sounds demented, the more coaches speak out like this, the sooner they'll hopefully start to improve it.
That was Toovey unloading when the refs had no bearing on the result. I dread to think how he'll react should Manly get eliminated due to a dodgy call.
Sorry about that. Perhaps I should just pretend that luck and good fortune don't exist. Williams went within a boot and an Inglis try saver. Matai was held up in what was probably a try anyway or would've been if he'd passed to an unmarked Taufua. It could well have been 16 or 18-6 Manly with 20 to go. Lyon was held up. Souths only made one more line break than what Manly did and with a 15% better completion rate. But not a week earlier when they were coming off two losses? How convenient for your position. And Manly played them in Melbourne as opposed to Easts who played them at home. Your two wins were against the same side for starters. And their efforts against the two best sides in the comp were better than yours. Oh and just a side note; Easts have played 3 of their 4 at home. As opposed to Manly who have only played 2 of their 5. Yeah, I figured you'd go here after exhausting all other avenues. You stop lying about rating Manly higher in the first place, and now you say even though you did, you didn't actually rate them as a genuine chance. Strange you didn't mention that in response to EWS's amalgam of the three so called top sides. Oh right, you thought they had something to prove under Toovey. . So again, to go back to the question I asked several weeks ago, what happened in the space of 11 days or whatever it was to make you go from Manly being a better chance than Easts (though not a contender ) to Easts being not just better than Manly but also genuine contenders? I have to say, this is fun, Magic. Watching you try to dig your way out of the rather large hole you've put yourself in.
You can do whatever you like, I just find your reluctance to provide rational analysis in situations that are counter productive to your points amusing, as you can probably tell from my avatar. Your default position on statistics or examples that disprove your arguments is luck and good fortune. I thought Souths were well off their game in the first half, they were still creating overlaps but their execution was poor. I'm not sure if it was just the match fitness or timing with Inglis but he looked a different player in the second half. If I remember correctly all of Souths line breaks came in that second half. There's really no more excuses for Manly, they've had their key players back for a while now and they've shown the ability to click against lesser opposition but the step up in class has proven a step too far as highlighted by their record against top 4 opposition under Toovey. I never said they weren't still an out of form side I just said they had a large motivation because it was their last game before the origin period. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think we saw a Melbourne side who struggled heading into, throughout and after origin to find their best form. Yeh Home & away, I'm aware of that. It's still 2 wins though which is better than 0. Last time I checked anyway... Like I said if you want to dig up the quote where I said Manly were genuine contenders then I'm happy to discuss it with you but I know it doesn't exist so I'm not going to take up a position I don't agree with just to have an argument with you. My reservations of Manly under Toovey were clear from the outset. I've admitted for some time that my original post about where I rate the Roosters in comparison to Manly, Souths & Melbourne was unclear of my true opinion but you continually choose to ignore that so I'm not going to discuss it any further. If you want to discuss league then cool, but all the personal shit is getting a bit tiresome. Coincidentally in 2011 you and I disagreed over Manly, you said they wouldn't win the comp because they hadn't beaten a top 4 side all year. I of course predicted them to win the comp so I don't know if this is part of your quest for vindication or what but it'd be nice to actually hear you bring up some rational points on the topic rather than trying to have a go at me and bring the Roosters into it 24/7.
That's not true either. And it's an evasion anyway. You have 3 near misses and I think it's fair to say you're been a bit unlucky in that department. It's not mutually exclusive. It's just a preposterous double standard in favour of your side. It's a crudely fashioned argument made retrospectively to fit in with your position that Easts have a better record against top 4 sides. You slag off Manly's draw because Melbourne were coming off two losses but you dismiss the idea that Easts might be getting them at a good time......because it was the last week before Origin. ......Yeah okay. Perhaps if Manly had had 75% of their games against top 4 sides at home, they might've beaten one of them too. What we do know is they've come closer to beating the top 2 sides than what Easts have. I don't need to quote you saying it. Your concurrence with EWS including them with Souths and Melbourne demonstrates it. If you want to pretend you only rated Melbourne and Souths as genuine contenders but then changed your mind to include a third side about a week and a bit later, then that's your business but I'm not going to go along with that charade. Well I'm glad you've attempted to clarify it after denying it for several weeks. I assume you recognise that this is a two-way street? 2011 hadn't even crossed my mind. I'm tired of arguing with someone who talks about hypocrisy and dishonesty and intransigence yet who is a picture of all three. You don't want me bringing up the Roosters 24/7 but it's okay for you to intrude them into a conversation I was having with Flack about Penrith, not 7 days ago. Give us a break.
So are you saying form and motivation can't be mutually exclusive or are you trying to tell me what 'I really meant' Dr Phil? Like I said I really don't want to make this about the Roosters, your posts on them lack rational analysis so there's no point. Of course you don't need to quote me saying it because that'd show you up for the shit talker you are, I never said it. I think Souffs & Melbourne are a class above the other sides atm, although for different reasons to you. I clarified my position weeks ago, you just chose to ignore it, unsurprisingly. Like in every argument you bring up the same point and ask the same question over and over again until you get an answer that you can twist into a reasonable approximation of the answer you want just so you have a point to argue. Even if it's at the expense of the original argument itself. lol the Panthers joke was a tongue in cheek comment, lighten up ya sook.
No. I'm saying you have a double standard which favours your ridiculous dismissal of Manly's draw against Melbourne. I think it's pretty evident from your flip-flopping that your analysis is tragically flawed. You're full of shit. What happened in 9 days to propel Easts past Manly and not just that but to propel them into the same category of genuine contenders as Melbourne and Souths? Let me save you the trouble of looking since your memory is like a sieve. Easts beat Manly 18-12. And thus began your campaign to change your mind and act as if you never did. I keep asking it because you keep lying about it. Now you're seeking refuge by claiming a clarification. It's not a clarification. It's an about-face. So were a lot of my comments, you hypocritical fool. The double standards in your posts are just mind boggling.
