Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:29 pm  

Just putting assorted personalities to one side for a moment in my opinion the key lesson from the WC was that it shows how important the international arena is for the profile of the game, and it's ability to attract sponsorship. So whoever ends up at the helm we need to sort out a proper international program with more games.

The competition was always going to be a three horse race and the results show we lost to the other two contenders, though but for a collective 80 sec brain fart from experienced players we should really be in the final. So I agree that our performance against both Australia and NZ showed we have become competitive but in some ways I would be more concerned by the performances against Italy, Ireland and Fiji - both Oz and NZ kept their foot on the gas against the 2nd tier opponents for the full 80 minutes - and that's the level of concentration the England team needs to have if we are finally to close the gap.

Lets hope then that whoever is the coach gets more support, regular fixtures against the top teams - and perhaps more importantly support from the SL clubs to put aside their narrow interests and support the international game because that is the surest route to wider coverage and sponsorship.

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:42 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

I've got involved because you're massively upselling England's WC performances in support of your Steve McNamara hobby horse. The general tenor of your last few posts is 'indisputably' dressing opinion as fact. Not only that as an erudite fellow who doesn't choose his words randomly, my guess is that it was your 'undisputed' intention to do so. In respect of the specific post 'nobody' is quite a conclusive term.

Whoa right there, I don't have a McNamara hobby horse. I didn't start the thread! I didn’t even come in till about page bleedin 7 when I first posted my two penn'orth and that is it. If people then post at me, are you saying I am not allowed to respond? How does that work, then?

As for your general point, everyone on here has their opinions and that's fookin obviously what they are. Surely you aren’t one of these anals who argue every single forum post needs to bear an “in my opinion” caveat?

If you are, then why did you not rebuke the OP in his OP which said

Failed again. Miserably. Shame

It stated as a fact that McNamara had failed miserably. It didn’t say “in my opinion”. Of course, I KNOW that is ME stating his opinion. But the same logic applies to every other post on a forum so do me a favour and give it a rest.

Bullseye posted:

Compared with our performance in the last world cup we have improved under McNamara!

He didn’t say “in his opinion” we have improved. Why don’t you berate him for claiming it is a fact?

Tigertot stated baldly:

That was easily the best England/GB performance in over 20 years.

he didn’t feel the need to say it is, ultimately, just his opinion. You didn’t pull him up for dressing his opinion up as fact. Why not?

If I am not allowed to state things then why are you? The sort of things you have specified are normal conversation. In exactly the same way as You said:

Burgess and Graham were outstanding.

You didn’t say “In my opinion, Burgess and Graham were outstanding.” Of course, any reasonable person would agree with you, but the point is, this is the sort of “fact” that isn’t, literally, a fact yet a device which people reasonably use all the time.

In the second paragraph of that post you stated the following as facts:

· The halves have been poor
· Sinfield has not demonstrated he should have been picked above Brough.
· His kicking game yesterday was shocking
· it should have been Brough/Widdop from the start.

How it works on a forum, as in any informal convo, is that you say “The halves have been poor”; You might even say “Indisputably the halves have been poor. FACT” It doesn’t matter. It just means you, personally, wouldn’t brook any disagreement and anyone who does disagree is, in your opinion, wrong. Someone else may say “No, the halves have been good”; and you might then discuss your respective views. To instead analyse the claim and launch into some sterile discussion as to whether or not you were in fact “dressing up” your opinions that the halves have been poor/Sinfield’s kicking game was shocking, as “facts “ is pointless and silly. At least in the case of ME it cam as no surprise as he does anal rather well, but you?

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:58 pm  

A mid season Test series would never get off the ground for numerous reasons, one being logistics, two, opposition from NRL sides having to release their Kiwis and Aussies for rep duties. And the NZ warriors releasing majority of their side. Nice idea, but it will not get off the ground. McNamara proved once again he hasn't got it at top level.

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:30 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

A mid season Test series would never get off the ground for numerous reasons, one being logistics, two, opposition from NRL sides having to release their Kiwis and Aussies for rep duties. And the NZ warriors releasing majority of their side. Nice idea, but it will not get off the ground. McNamara proved once again he hasn't got it at top level.

How about a break in both leagues that weekend?

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:27 pm  

How about the cream of English talent play the cream of overseas talent in SL in a mid-season series?

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:38 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Tigertot stated baldly

And I am not bald. FACT.

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:16 pm  

I could be soon as this debate is nearly makinge pull my hair out. In my opinion

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:31 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Whoa right there, I don't have a McNamara hobby horse. I didn't start the thread! I didn’t even come in till about page bleedin 7 when I first posted my two penn'orth and that is it. If people then post at me, are you saying I am not allowed to respond? How does that work, then?

As for your general point, everyone on here has their opinions and that's fookin obviously what they are. Surely you aren’t one of these anals who argue every single forum post needs to bear an “in my opinion” caveat?

If you are, then why did you not rebuke the OP in his OP which said
It stated as a fact that McNamara had failed miserably. It didn’t say “in my opinion”. Of course, I KNOW that is ME stating his opinion. But the same logic applies to every other post on a forum so do me a favour and give it a rest.

Bullseye posted:
He didn’t say “in his opinion” we have improved. Why don’t you berate him for claiming it is a fact?

Tigertot stated baldly:
he didn’t feel the need to say it is, ultimately, just his opinion. You didn’t pull him up for dressing his opinion up as fact. Why not?

If I am not allowed to state things then why are you? The sort of things you have specified are normal conversation. In exactly the same way as You said:
You didn’t say “In my opinion, Burgess and Graham were outstanding.” Of course, any reasonable person would agree with you, but the point is, this is the sort of “fact” that isn’t, literally, a fact yet a device which people reasonably use all the time.

In the second paragraph of that post you stated the following as facts:

· The halves have been poor
· Sinfield has not demonstrated he should have been picked above Brough.
· His kicking game yesterday was shocking
· it should have been Brough/Widdop from the start.

How it works on a forum, as in any informal convo, is that you say “The halves have been poor”; You might even say “Indisputably the halves have been poor. FACT” It doesn’t matter. It just means you, personally, wouldn’t brook any disagreement and anyone who does disagree is, in your opinion, wrong. Someone else may say “No, the halves have been good”; and you might then discuss your respective views. To instead analyse the claim and launch into some sterile discussion as to whether or not you were in fact “dressing up” your opinions that the halves have been poor/Sinfield’s kicking game was shocking, as “facts “ is pointless and silly. At least in the case of ME it cam as no surprise as he does anal rather well, but you?

Utterly shameless ham!! You flew a big red flag to all us 'anti-McNamara trolls' and now you're all wounded. Just one point on forum etiquette, when you spout utter sh1£e on a forum and call it 'indisputable fact' - get ready. This is merely a humble opinion.

However, an indisputable fact, supported by evidence and tested hypothesis, is that McNamara should be shot.

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:45 pm  

This thread will be locked soon. FACT. In my opinion obviously.

Re: Bye bye McNamara : Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:34 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

Utterly shameless ham!! You flew a big red flag to all us 'anti-McNamara trolls' and now you're all wounded. Just one point on forum etiquette, when you spout utter sh1£e on a forum and call it 'indisputable fact' - get ready. This is merely a humble opinion.

However, an indisputable fact, supported by evidence and tested hypothesis, is that McNamara should be shot.

OK MBugs (and all Macsabaters). re-run time. pretend that Macsabater was not the England coach for that last game. Yes, put it clear out of your mind, indeed put in your favourite coach instead and now answer the question: was that a performance to be proud of at the 79th minute, yes or no?