Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:03 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

There is a big difference between trying to educate and rehabilitate a black sheep who is already a member of the family and taking the risk of welcoming into the family someone with the potential to bring trouble and disruption.

Didn't Falloon leave the NRL under some sort of cloud? Don't recall the same level of frothing over that one; most just seemed pleased we'd acquired a specialist hooker. But of their respective, alleged offences, I'd say the one Falloon was associated with has the greater potential to disrupt.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:05 am  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

Ferres might be more reliable and more consistent, but there is not a chance on this earth he's a more talented player than Hock. The fact that Hock has no brain and has thrown his talent down the toilet doesn't change the fact that he has incredible talent.

If Hock had anything resembling a brain he could have been one of the best second rowers the game has seen, Ferres is just good.

Now that's a point we can agree on.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:38 am  

Wow! A lot of people really rating Hock highly. Not sure why, never fully fit a day in his life, error prone, lacked concentration and a liability discipline wise.
It's true, I liked some of the aggression he brought and he had decent hands, but really? Inconsistent, lazy, and incapable of drawing a line (unless it was with white powder in a pub toilet). But lots of excuses based on off field issues. As has previously been said, his issues for me were on the pitch.
Ferres by plenty.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:43 am  

I'm not saying I'd rather have Hock, just that in terms of pure talent he's the superior player.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:51 am  

Not condoning what Ferres did but we are talking about one issue here with him that would be massively unlikely to ever be repeated whereas Hock has a long list of 'incidents' and you always feel like his next cock up isn't too far away.

Again not condoning or trying to excuse what Ferres did but comparing him and Hock is quite flawed.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:57 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Not condoning what Ferres did but we are talking about one issue here with him that would be massively unlikely to ever be repeated whereas Hock has a long list of 'incidents' and you always feel like his next cock up isn't too far away.

Again not condoning or trying to excuse what Ferres did but comparing him and Hock is quite flawed.

I was responding to an argument of 'the only thing that matters is playing ability'. I think Hock is the perfect example of why that isn't so.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:41 pm  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

I was responding to an argument of 'the only thing that matters is playing ability'. I think Hock is the perfect example of why that isn't so.

Hardly. If you are willing to excuse poor fitness levels, awful discipline, poor attitude, lack of concentration and chronic inconsistency (while actually playing rugby) then yes, he's brilliant. Kevin Sinfield can't have been fit to lace his boots.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:08 pm  

DHM wrote:

Hardly. If you are willing to excuse poor fitness levels, awful discipline, poor attitude, lack of concentration and chronic inconsistency (while actually playing rugby) then yes, he's brilliant. Kevin Sinfield can't have been fit to lace his boots.

All his problems are my entire point. However when it comes to PLAYING ABILITY he has more than Brett Ferres.

I was responding to a very specific and (IMO) poorly thought out point, how is this so difficult to understand? I don't want Hock. I don't want Ferres. I don't agree that playing ability is all that matters. I think Hock has more ability than Ferres. I think Ferres has made a much better account of himself with his more limited skill set. I think they're both scumbags.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:56 pm  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

All his problems are my entire point. However when it comes to PLAYING ABILITY he has more than Brett Ferres.

I was responding to a very specific and (IMO) poorly thought out point, how is this so difficult to understand? I don't want Hock. I don't want Ferres. I don't agree that playing ability is all that matters. I think Hock has more ability than Ferres. I think Ferres has made a much better account of himself with his more limited skill set. I think they're both scumbags.

You're not difficult to understand at all. I just fundamentally disagree with your assessment of Hock's level of "ability".
I also understood, pretty much straight away, that you have some really deep issues with whatever you think has gone on in Ferres's private life. As I don't know the guy at all, or Huby, or Mrs Huby, or any of the details surrounding what's gone on between them I don't really have an opinion.

Re: Ferres to Roosters falls through. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 6:17 pm  

DHM wrote:

Wow! A lot of people really rating Hock highly. Not sure why, never fully fit a day in his life, error prone, lacked concentration and a liability discipline wise.
It's true, I liked some of the aggression he brought and he had decent hands, but really? Inconsistent, lazy, and incapable of drawing a line (unless it was with white powder in a pub toilet). But lots of excuses based on off field issues. As has previously been said, his issues for me were on the pitch.
Ferres by plenty.

Hock has the same disease as Luther Burrell and Steffon Armitage caught over the summer, where they go from good to world class by not being on the field.

Hock's legacy will always be that of unfulfilled potential, and the more unfulfilled that potential has been, the bigger that potential has become. Hock went from a hard running, dynamic second rower with hit and miss defence, poor decision making who gave away far too many stupid penalties, to the new Gorden Tallis because he barely played. In 9 years at Wigan he missed nearly 2 years through injury, 2 years from a drugs ban, made 1 dream team has only 9 international caps, and was bumming about at the lower reaches of SL before his 30's and out of SL before he is 32.