: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:03 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Leon is 26 and (AFAIK) not Antipodean, but anyway who was discussing whether or not whoever would have whoever back or not?

What's being Antipodean got to do with anything you stated that 27 was past it. All i did was highlight the fact Leon is only two months younger than Whatuira so must be past it too.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Who cares if you're 'unconvinced'? Anyone can choose to comment only with the benefit of hindsight, like you, but what is the point? Menzies "2 or 3 years ago"? If you really think he's been past it for 2 years then with all due respect you have the rugby knowledge of a roasted peanut.

Sorry but aren't you commenting with hindsight just because Menzies looks OK at Manly doesn't me he will be here.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

He isn't, but at least you agree that was one bad example by you.

Sorry your talking pap.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:17 pm  

redeverready wrote:

What's being Antipodean got to do with anything you stated that 27 was past it. All i did was highlight the fact Leon is only two months younger than Whatuira so must be past it too.

Sorry but aren't you commenting with hindsight just because Menzies looks OK at Manly doesn't me he will be here.
Sorry your talking pap.

You used "past it", I did not. Don't make things up. It makes you sound even battier.

What being Antipodean has to do with it is that the Bulls are regularly criticized for recruiting Antipodeans esp. NZ players yet when it suits the same critics call them for not going for every Antipodean player that breathes, and "letting" someone else sign some of them.

You're awfully confused about the hindsight point. If I talk about Menzies as a true legend of the game (which he is) how the fu.ck could he (or anyone) be, except "with hindsight"? Have you lost the plot totally?

Talking pap? You are the self-appointed expert in that.

: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:28 pm  

dingus - tadulala isn't a patch on Hicks.

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:55 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Hicks? We have easily the better signing in Tadulala.

Sorry, but that is a wind up surely?

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:45 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Hicks? We have easily the better signing in Tadulala.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Who is Webster? A failure in the NRL and playing so-so for a basement club. What would we want with Webster? Be sensible.

Webster the NZ international a failure? Playing for the Gold Coast Titans in their first season is hardly the same as playing for a SL basement side like Cas, where Platt came from, and also had a history of making silly errors at

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Feather may or may not turn out to be a good signing, but he can't have been viewed as that bad by Leeds who signed him for 4 years, and played him 12 games in 2006. He hasn't broken any pots, but seems to have broken just about everything else, and given his horrendous and unpredictable injury/illness problems it seems ludicrous to make a judgment on what he could be. As a 27 year old 6'4" 18 stone experienced forward I am sure he has the potential to be very good next year.

Feather was OK at first for Leeds but his potential never kicked in. So much so that he spent a large part of his Leeds career on loan to Wakefield or in the reserves. Tony Smith is reputed to have wanted rid for ages but couldn't find a club to take him of our hands... I think it is becoming clear that Feather will probably never realise his potential, especially as he's managed not to do it by 27.

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:02 am  

Hicks is consistency & professionalism personified, & a top kicker to boot. Tad has the eccentricites & style of a Henderson Gill (but not as good) & will score more individually impressive tries. You pays your money......

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:08 am  

tigertot wrote:

Hicks is consistency & professionalism personified, & a top kicker to boot. Tad has the eccentricites & style of a Henderson Gill (but not as good) & will score more individually impressive tries. You pays your money......

Pretty much got it with that I'd say. But I would add that Tadulala is probably a more natural finisher. The big weakness in his game used to be a bit dodgy defence but pleasingly he seems to have made big improvements in that area over the course of the season. Still prone to the odd bit of dodgy positioning but overall he's improved quite a bit over the year in my eyes.

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:50 am  

tigertot wrote:

Hicks is consistency & professionalism personified, & a top kicker to boot. Tad has the eccentricites & style of a Henderson Gill (but not as good) & will score more individually impressive tries. You pays your money......

I agree but Tadulala is hardly 'easily better'.

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:30 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

I agree but Tadulala is hardly 'easily better'.

But now you have seen sense, you will also see that while "easily better" is a matter of opinion, your original position - which amounts to that the Bulls should have got, or been in for Sing - is invalidated given (a) you now largely agree the comments about Tadulala and (b) we can't sign everybody.

: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:50 pm  

Trimalchio wrote:

I agree but Tadulala is hardly 'easily better'.

I agree. IMO it depends on the qualities of the rest of the team as to who I would prefer. If you are Saints or Leeds, with qualities, & kickers, across the park you can afford the luxuries of Tad. If you need some consistency & a top kicker, you would go for Hicks or a Richards. This should, in theory, allow you to pay more for flair players in the key positions of 6, 7, 9 & 13 without them having to have the added skill of kicking.