Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:53 am  

Surely people can recognise the difference between attacking kicks (Goulding's high balls for Graham) and negative kicks, looking solely for repeat sets ?

One is only looking to tire an opposition out and benefit from a tiring defence. The other is a genuine attacking play, looking to score.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:10 am  

SLS wrote:

Surely people can recognise the difference between attacking kicks (Goulding's high balls for Graham) and negative kicks, looking solely for repeat sets ?

One is only looking to tire an opposition out and benefit from a tiring defence. The other is a genuine attacking play, looking to score.

What's wrong with tactical kicking to tire the opposition out? In every sport there are tactics that aren't exactly easy on the eyes but you can still admire and enjoy the execution of them. For example, in snooker when someone plays for a 'snooker', that can be seen as very negative but when you think about it, it's a very intelligent piece of winning play.

Negative kicks as you call them, can win territory and therefore games...so in a way, that's actually a positive.

I love rugby league. I never find it boring or negative. Credit to the likes of Sinfield who apply their intelligence of the game to turn the screw on the opposition.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:38 am  

Twentyman wrote:

What's wrong with tactical kicking to tire the opposition out? In every sport there are tactics that aren't exactly easy on the eyes but you can still admire and enjoy the execution of them. For example, in snooker when someone plays for a 'snooker', that can be seen as very negative but when you think about it, it's a very intelligent piece of winning play.

Negative kicks as you call them, can win territory and therefore games...so in a way, that's actually a positive.

I love rugby league. I never find it boring or negative. Credit to the likes of Sinfield who apply their intelligence of the game to turn the screw on the opposition.

Agreed. Kicking is a fundamental and, for me, fascinating part of the game. I like those territorial, 'arm-wrestle' type games precisely because tactics come so much more to the fore. It's not too pleasant to be on the end of it, but I think a half back really controlling a side and kicking a team to death is a joy to behold. FWIW, I also find those long safety battles the most interesting part of snooker.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:13 pm  

SLS wrote:

One is only looking to tire an opposition out and benefit from a tiring defence. The other is a genuine attacking play, looking to score.

Doesn't wanting to benefit from a tiring defence mean that it is an attacking kick then? Surely gaining a repeat set against a tiring side improves the chance of scoring?

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:14 pm  

Twentyman wrote:

Haha, right, cheers for explaining mate.

26-12 down, completely out the game, and the brilliant Bobby Goulding puts 3 huge bombs up for poor Nathan Graham, and we win our 1st Challenge Cup for 20 years. I can see why that might have been tedious for you Mugwump.

Are you and St. Pete Siamese twins? Like him you seem unable to read. And just like him you can't stop yourself from arguing with scarecrows?

Ooops - has the word length of this post exceeded your brain capacity? SHD I US TXT SPK INSTD?

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:40 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Are you and St. Pete Siamese twins? Like him you seem unable to read. And just like him you can't stop yourself from arguing with scarecrows?

Ooops - has the word length of this post exceeded your brain capacity? SHD I US TXT SPK INSTD?

The word 'Mugwump' couldn't be more apt for you mate. The definition being of someone who is aloof and independent. Aloof being distant and unfriendly. I'd take a stab in the dark and guess that maybe someone you respected, like an old school teacher or someone else called you that, and after looking it up in a dictionary, you were so chuffed you wore it like a badge. I could be wrong of course as I'm just some daft lad from St.Helens, I'm not a psychologist.

My point is, you're a bit of bell**d and I'm bored of you questioning people's intelligence just because they might challenge your opinion.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:10 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Are you and St. Pete Siamese twins? Like him you seem unable to read. And just like him you can't stop yourself from arguing with scarecrows?

Ooops - has the word length of this post exceeded your brain capacity? SHD I US TXT SPK INSTD?

a) Mugwump you are an administrator of this site so why are you directly slagging off other board users? (St Pete and Twentyman)

2. Member Conduct

2.1. Comments that are meant to upset or cause distress to other members are prohibited on this site.

Surely as administrator you are aware of this and therefore held to a higher standard of ethics?

b) What does arguing with scarecrows even mean? (Cue a reply calling me an idiot or whatever.....)

c) Why insinuate that Twentyman is stupid? Is that called for? Does it make you feel good?

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:30 pm  

Twentyman wrote:

The word 'Mugwump' couldn't be more apt for you mate. The definition being of someone who is aloof and independent. Aloof being distant and unfriendly. I'd take a stab in the dark and guess that maybe someone you respected, like an old school teacher or someone else called you that, and after looking it up in a dictionary, you were so chuffed you wore it like a badge. I could be wrong of course as I'm just some daft lad from St.Helens, I'm not a psychologist.

Definition: Wrong!. Subsequent analysis: Wrong!.

FOUR from FOUR.

EPIC FAIL!!!

My point is, you're a bit of bell**d and I'm bored of you questioning people's intelligence just because they might challenge your opinion.

Stop wailing like a baby. This is a PUBLIC message board - not a group appreciation society. Post here or anywhere else and you'd better be prepared to take criticism for stupidity. If you can't handle that go some place where they give out free kisses and hugs with every post.

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:36 pm  

WeepingWillow wrote:

a) Mugwump you are an administrator of this site so why are you directly slagging off other board users? (St Pete and Twentyman)

2. Member Conduct

2.1. Comments that are meant to upset or cause distress to other members are prohibited on this site.

Surely as administrator you are aware of this and therefore held to a higher standard of ethics?

b) What does arguing with scarecrows even mean? (Cue a reply calling me an idiot or whatever.....)

c) Why insinuate that Twentyman is stupid? Is that called for? Does it make you feel good?

Does changing your ID make you feel anonymous?

Re: Adam Quinlan : Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:48 pm  

You've spoilt this thread. It was about Saints issues.