Kangaroos vs Kiwis (Qld Ch9 spoilers)

So me saying something about Lockyer is because of Thurston? Not only are you hypocritical for doing the exact same thing, but it's pretty clear this is actually true.

Yes, actually. Well, that and the pseudo-ethnological garbage.

 

We were simply comparing depth to the names you posted, which btw, should've included Weyman, Poore and Ryles.

 

Least Tate got Player's Player. That's something I guess. Interesting to hear the reaction of those who claimed Gallen getting said award in the 2009 Four Nations final was proof that he played well and was best on-ground. The silence will be deafening.

 

First game of what?

 

I see, so the Player's Player award is always right is it?

Player's often cannot analyse a game as well as someone who's not playing it - For obvious reasons. They're busy playing a game and doing their own job. This is evident by their statements.

And when Gallen missed a ruck tackle and then gave away a penalty to follow it up, and NZ kicked a penalty goal instead of scoring a try - Yeah I'm sure the rest of the Australian players thought, well we got out of that pretty easily...didn't cost us much. But hey, seeing how Gallen didn't get Player's Player, perhaps they did care.

 

I do love having this argument. Ya know. It's just so flawed and reactionary. Okay so what happens when 55% of players pick say, Tate. And the other 45% pick Gallen for said award? If I picked Tate as well, does that mean I know more than the other 45%?

Or what if 80% pick one bloke and 20% pick somebody else? Does that prove the bloke who had near-unanimity must've been the best player that day?

What happens when the players disagree with each other? Weren't they paying attention? It's the same argument as the all too familiar - Well he played for Australia 30 years ago, or, he is an NRL coach, therefore he must know more than you. It's white noise.