Re: richards or deacon : Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:39 pm  

pokerface wrote:

Richards has been kicking pre-season!

Yeah but Deacon didn't play

Re: richards or deacon : Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:35 am  

Batesy wrote:

So has Cameron Phelps. Learn your stuff before you shoot other posters for asking a "non-serious question" imo.

And you must be Mr. Phelps legal representative? Will I be sued for not bothering to acknowledge the useless waste of space?

Re: richards or deacon : Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:42 am  

Grimmy wrote:

Yeah but Deacon didn't play

And that will be the case for most of the season im sure. Besides any idiot can see based on the last 3 years when Richards took over kicking duties at wigan that his kicking average beats Deacons hands down over the same period.

Re: richards or deacon : Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:07 am  

Spot on Pokerface, Richards will be the kicker for Wigan this year, no doubt about it.
For one, Deacon wont be in the team often (partly because he's not that good anymore and Tomkins and Leuluai will be the halves). Richards is always one of the top kickers in SL.
They've got a few who can kick like Roberts, Riddell etc but Richards will kick goals.

Re: richards or deacon : Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:40 pm  

LS14 RHINO wrote:

Spot on Pokerface, Richards will be the kicker for Wigan this year, no doubt about it.
For one, Deacon wont be in the team often (partly because he's not that good anymore and Tomkins and Leuluai will be the halves). Richards is always one of the top kickers in SL.
They've got a few who can kick like Roberts, Riddell etc but Richards will kick goals.

Re: richards or deacon : Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:30 pm  

pokerface wrote:

And that will be the case for most of the season im sure. Besides any idiot can see based on the last 3 years when Richards took over kicking duties at wigan that his kicking average beats Deacons hands down over the same period.

Before You make these remarks do your research, Deacon had a better kicking average than richards last season Richards kicked 88 goals and missed 40, Deacon kicked 86 and missed 23.

so any idiot can see what????

Re: richards or deacon : Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:41 pm  

vegas3 wrote:

Before You make these remarks do your research, Deacon had a better kicking average than richards last season Richards kicked 88 goals and missed 40, Deacon kicked 86 and missed 23.

so any idiot can see what????

Richards will still kick.

Re: richards or deacon : Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:45 pm  

vegas3 wrote:

Before You make these remarks do your research, Deacon had a better kicking average than richards last season Richards kicked 88 goals and missed 40, Deacon kicked 86 and missed 23.

so any idiot can see what????

Have you been sat with your calculator out for all of last seasons games?
Besides, not only have you got involved in someone elses arguement, my stats are based on a 3 year average like the post actually said at the time!

I thought any idiot could of at least read that!!

Re: richards or deacon : Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:40 pm  

[quote="pokerface"]Have you been sat with your calculator out for all of last seasons games?
Besides, not only have you got involved in someone elses arguement, my stats are based on a 3 year average like the post actually said at the time!

I thought any idiot could of at least read that!! [/quot

How the feck can you say iv been sat with a calculater, yet you have worked out the kicking stats for both players over the last 3 years sounds like some other geek as been sat with 1 to me..Anyways i was the one, who posted the question on here. so it was my agument in the 1st place. I only questioned your reply about richards being a better kicker, i still dont no were ya get that from but i will take your word for it.....Anyways I personally agree with you, in some respects i dont think deacon will get much game time, i do think richards will kick and should kick..so lets leave it at that!!!!

Re: richards or deacon : Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:43 pm  

How about both of you stop bickering !!!
We'll see who kicks when they play Crusaders next weekend.
(But it will be Richards)