Re: Jamie foster : Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:43 pm  

St pete wrote:

Some need a arm around them and some need a kick up the bum but jammer preferred the later

Yeah, so the photo of Jammer comforting Makinson after our GF defeat was a total fiction then?

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:40 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Yeah, so the photo of Jammer comforting Makinson after our GF defeat was a total fiction then?

You see, it's stuff like this which demonstrates why the fundamentals of debate should be re-introduced to schools.

1. Since when did a "prefer(ence" amount to an unbreakable law of the universe? I mean, I prefer oxtail soup to minestrone. Does this mean if I suddenly fancy a change and eat the latter it follows that I absolutely do not prefer oxtail? Of course not.

2. We have ALL seen Graham ranting at other Saints players over mistakes, positioning etc. etc. Of course it isn't personal and after the game they are all friends again. But no two players are alike. Remember, these guys are out there every day fighting not just for the team but their livelihoods as well. SL is a cut-throat business and mistakes have ended many a career. If you are a player lacking self-confidence and on a poor run of form the last thing you need after dropping a clanger is your skipper, veins and eyeballs bursting from his skin, two inches from your face calling you a phucking idiot. It's the type of thing that can linger in a player's memory - worse still grow to shape his personality.

3. Regardless of whether you think Graham is an entirely supportive captain it is clear Gary Wheeler (and by implication other players) isn't entirely convinced. Which means you're arguing against your own players.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:44 am  

St pete wrote:

I think he gets a bigger buzz off using twitter to brag about himself, he'll soon be bragging he's playing at Leigh sports village if he don't get himself sorted.

I've stuck up for him in the past when he's been called a one trick pony but it's looking like that might be the case.

Just about sums up the ignorance of some fans of untouchable Non Relegation clubs.

Had you played Leigh last night the crowd would have been about 17000.

Foster had a bad game ok but Cats deserved the win not least because their players AND ALL OF THEM never gave up.

Do not run down clubs the RFL do not care about just cos your team lost a game they should have won because of your own hairstyle.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:59 am  

kingsway cat wrote:

Perhaps I have no room to comment because he is not a WTW player but from a neutrals point of view he comes across as a ponce. He seems to have the attitude of a 'footballer' and not a rugby league player. Paul Sculthorpe was the face of rugby league for a reason, a model professional, a great player, an excellent advertisement for the sport of rugby league. He was a good looking lad too who did promotions for gillette etc and he never let his eye of the prize. I fear Jamie Foster's career as an elite RL player will be over quicker than it started if he concentrates on his image rather than his ability.

What a horribly hypocritical post, one on hand you're just sterotyping footballers of having an attitude and on the other you're comparing one RL player acting like a footballer, whatever that means, against a 'model pro' so in that case why is this attitude exclusive of footballer if RL players have it too, maybe it's just a human nature thing?

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

There's his biggest distraction... He needs to stay off this and re-focus himself so that his priority is RL and not Social Networking

So because he goes on Twitter he's distracted? I would imagine he doesn't spend all his spare hours on there so he probably isn't distracted at all. Maybe just needs to work on things, something the coaching staff should be doing. It's a pathetic attitude some people have on here that Foster should be dropped down to the U20's because that'll improve him no end, won't it?

salfordlad wrote:

Do not run down clubs the RFL do not care about just cos your team lost a game they should have won because of your own hairstyle.

I love this impression some people have that RFL don't care, of course they don't I'm sure they'd love to see all the clubs outside SL go bust, eh?

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:02 am  

Mugwump wrote:

You see, it's stuff like this which demonstrates why the fundamentals of debate should be re-introduced to schools.

1. Since when did a "prefer(ence" amount to an unbreakable law of the universe? I mean, I prefer oxtail soup to minestrone. Does this mean if I suddenly fancy a change and eat the latter it follows that I absolutely do not prefer oxtail? Of course not.

2. We have ALL seen Graham ranting at other Saints players over mistakes, positioning etc. etc. Of course it isn't personal and after the game they are all friends again. But no two players are alike. Remember, these guys are out there every day fighting not just for the team but their livelihoods as well. SL is a cut-throat business and mistakes have ended many a career. If you are a player lacking self-confidence and on a poor run of form the last thing you need after dropping a clanger is your skipper, veins and eyeballs bursting from his skin, two inches from your face calling you a phucking idiot. It's the type of thing that can linger in a player's memory - worse still grow to shape his personality.

3. Regardless of whether you think Graham is an entirely supportive captain it is clear Gary Wheeler (and by implication other players) isn't entirely convinced. Which means you're arguing against your own players.

Exactly right Mugwump. Which is what makes O'Loughlin a good captain over at Wigan, despite some (albeit much fewer these days) Wigan fans being convinced the only way to captain a side is to 'bawl them out'. As a matter of fact, I don't actually know of many people who respond to being bawled at in any walk of life, let alone in a high pressure job like professional sportsman. IMO it's usually counter productive. look at Joynt or Scully for you guys. Didn't really see them giving the hair dryer tratment too often. Didn't stop the trophies coming though....

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:06 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Yeah, so the photo of Jammer comforting Makinson after our GF defeat was a total fiction then?

That was after the game, just watch it back and watch him under the sticks. Ranting and raving.

I dont care what you say, I've seen his temper first hand.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:12 am  

salfordlad wrote:

Just about sums up the ignorance of some fans of untouchable Non Relegation clubs.

Had you played Leigh last night the crowd would have been about 17000.

Foster had a bad game ok but Cats deserved the win not least because their players AND ALL OF THEM never gave up.

Do not run down clubs the RFL do not care about just cos your team lost a game they should have won because of your own hairstyle.

I didn't mean it like that and shouldn't have named teams. I was trying to make the point that if he doesn't start getting his rugby head back on he will find himself drifting off in to a lesser team or lower league.

Jamie has shown he can play rugby but IMO he's a little distracted with the good life that comes with it.

As I said, a little run in the u20s would do him good at the moment. He can still have his flash car, nice clothes, hairdressers, the hairstyle etc while staying a good player but he needs to come down to earth and start doing what he's paid a good wage to do.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:43 am  

Mugwump wrote:

You see, it's stuff like this which demonstrates why the fundamentals of debate should be re-introduced to schools.

Indeed and obviously you are the one to take it forward. However, I would suggest you return to the classroom yourself first in order to refamiliarise yourself with the art of reading in context. My post was a direct response to a bit of mind reading by Pete. How does Pete know what Jammer prefers? That's right; he doesn't. I simply responded with an example of when Jammer was quite the opposite to his ranting and raving self, suggesting that there is more to the man than ranting and raving. And Pete still does not know what approach Jammer prefers.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:01 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Indeed and obviously you are the one to take it forward. However, I would suggest you return to the classroom yourself first in order to refamiliarise yourself with the art of reading in context. My post was a direct response to a bit of mind reading by Pete. How does Pete know what Jammer prefers? That's right; he doesn't.

You're right. The only person who really knows is James Graham. But this does not mean we cannot make a rational assumption based on observable evidence (of which there is A LOT) and the testimony of the very people Graham bestowed his captaincy upon - players such as Gary Wheeler.

Re: Jamie foster : Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:05 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Indeed and obviously you are the one to take it forward. However, I would suggest you return to the classroom yourself first in order to refamiliarise yourself with the art of reading in context. My post was a direct response to a bit of mind reading by Pete. How does Pete know what Jammer prefers? That's right; he doesn't. I simply responded with an example of when Jammer was quite the opposite to his ranting and raving self, suggesting that there is more to the man than ranting and raving. And Pete still does not know what approach Jammer prefers.

Like I said, I know jammer is a hot head and I've seen it first hand.

Oh, I take it wheeler don't know him either?