Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:13 pm  

Deano G wrote:

I thought the point of Phil Clarke was to provide some balance given Eddie and Stevo's long running love affair with the self-styled "Entertainers"...

No, the point of Phil Clarke is a "job for the boys". He is there to give us pointless stats that mean nothing, nor does anyone care about.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:14 pm  

Deano G wrote:

I thought the point of Phil Clarke was to provide some balance given Eddie and Stevo's long running love affair with the self-styled "Entertainers"...

by balance you mean Cherry and White tinted bias?


And as for Eddie ' wouldnt it be nice to have 2 different teams in the grand final this year *COUGH Warrington *COUGH ... yeah , real saints bias

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:14 pm  

Crackador wrote:

Couple of people here need to go on the Steve Ganson bias thread, this is the Phil Clarke bias thread.

Well said!

Phil sounded a bit daft on occasion. What he should have been aiming for is to create tension around the match as a whole, not just for Hull to get back. The problem is, Saints have been so successful during Superleague that no-one wants us to win anything, especially with a team full of young players (showing just how good our production line is).

Since Phil and Eddie are partners in crime ... just let me mention that I thought Eddie Hemmings saying 'wouldn't it be nice to have two totally different teams at the Grand Final' was out of order. Phil, to his credit, corrected him by saying that he wanted to see the two best teams at the Grand Final. Although I think Eddie H is a great anchor man (although a little scatty this season with regard to the names of players), sometimes he opens his mouth before engaging his brain, and makes himself look very daft in the process.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:16 pm  

Do you know, Eddie, Saints have scored more tries from kicks rebounding off the arses of opposition defenders in the last 10 minutes of the first half of all their home games than any other side in Super League?

And do you know, Eddie, one day I might come up with a relevant statistic or an interesting observation, but you have to doubt that very much.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:16 pm  

Katie.Smithson wrote:

No, the point of Phil Clarke is a "job for the boys". He is there to give us pointless stats that mean nothing, nor does anyone care about.

Got back from the KC quick didn't you.

Clarke and Carney were spot on with that last decision. Never a penalty.

Or are you to bothered about watching Gareth Hock train?

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:18 pm  

Deano G wrote:

I thought the point of Phil Clarke was to provide some balance given Eddie and Stevo's long running love affair with the self-styled "Entertainers"...

Don't get so edgy because of evidence that the entire universe does not hate Wigan. The paranoid hysteria on C&W about the Sky team (and, of course, the rest of the population of Earth) may have just shaken a little.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:18 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Got back from the KC quick didn't you.

Didnt go.

Hey, England squad announced soon. Is this the year McIllorum finally fulfills your prophecy?

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:20 pm  

Crackador wrote:

Couple of people here need to go on the Steve Ganson bias thread, this is the Phil Clarke bias thread. Are we not allowed to have an independent opinion about something without the suspicion that we're favouring the team we support? I've thought about this Phil Clarke bias for sometime, should I just keep biting my tongue and never state my opinion on it? Given the 80 minutes that have just preceded, it is perfect, fresh evidence.

You really have gone out on a limb here, I'm talking as an intelligent adult about an issue I believe in. I wish I could think for myself like you, then I could make presumptions. Mate, this is a forum where we have the freedom to talk about all aspects of the game, by your logic we should have 10 posts about how good todays game was and we would all agree with each other.

Actually it's the bias thread not the Steve Ganson bias thread or the Phil Clarke bias thread. You didn't specify and I'm sure most people would have assumed it was Ganson after some of the decisions he made today.

Penalty my ****!

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:23 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Clarke and Carney were spot on with that last decision. Never a penalty.

Incorrect, it WAS a penalty and the stats will tell you so

Also did you manage to rub the Cherry and White paint off your specs long enough to see the pathetic forward passathon by Hull in the first half?

Re: Unacceptable bias : Mon May 02, 2011 4:23 pm  

Katie.Smithson wrote:

Didnt go.

Hey, England squad announced soon. Is this the year McIllorum finally fulfills your prophecy?

Now there's a surprise

How good was Danny Houghton today as a scotrer hooker?