: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:34 am  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

IIRC he actually stands with Nobby - and he didn't call anyone a "know-nothing-parrot" but, hey, let's not let the actual facts stand in the way of another turgid session of toing and froing.

You're right, he didn't actually use the phrase know-nothing-parrott, he said anybody putting Hock on the bench is daft and that anybody who says that is because he will have a good impact off the bench is parrotting that line.

So lets say daft parrotts. That better?

As for toing and froing, I am genuinely interested in what Jackdog believes are the merits in Hock starting, other than Nobby also believes it. It may be he has seen something I (or anybody else) haven't. I am trying to have a debate, that is why it is called a forum.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:39 am  

Wind your necks in pazzers, my position is substantial enough already, believe me. Any substantialer and I'll need a bigger basket.

I just wish all the so-called 'experts' -- you know the ones...our head coach and his staff etc. -- would learn to listen to the views of the majority of experienced website posters. In fact, I think forum posters should actually 'elect' the team.

..And I reserve the right to further turgidity until dinner time.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:39 am  

WigansForeignLegion wrote:

Actually it was Bridger who used the term; I was quoting, not Jackdog, but quoting nonetheless HTH (aka You didn't remember correctly, I look forward to your climbing down on this).

He stands with Noble now - I prefer Nobles use of Hock at the end of last season. So by that logic we both stand with Noble.

Sorry to be pedantic pal and this will be my last offering on this subject, but I am aware Bridger coined the phrase. It was the way you used it to have a pop at the OP that was incorrect, hence me pulling you up. If one were to only read your post it would appear that the OP used the phrase and you were retaliating to it, a common enough tactic on here.

Anyway, I shall step aside and let you continue, not least because if you agree with Nobby yet dispute his use of Hock you can't be wrong - or right for that matter.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:40 am  

IMO You need some impact in terms of power and aggression at the start, it's a key time in the game. Hock can offer this impact better than any other player in the team minus Feka, who is better coming on after 20 mins for added impact.

If we had 2 hard hitting props i.e Andy Lynch and Tommy's cousin then I probably would start Hock from the bench as 'secondary impact', but as it happens we often start with Coley and Fielden who have little impact from the start so we need something from the kick off, someone on there to mix it up amongst the first hits/drives.

So no one is wrong, just a case of what benefits the team, and how we can utilise Hock considering our other players.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:43 am  

Bridger wrote:

the merits in Hock starting, other than Nobby also believes it..

It's because Hock's a very good player. Perhaps our best.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:48 am  

jackdog wrote:

It's because Hock's a very good player. Perhaps our best.

*When used correctly.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:49 am  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Sorry to be pedantic pal and this will be my last offering on this subject, but I am aware Bridger coined the phrase. It was the way you used it to have a pop at the OP that was incorrect, hence me pulling you up. If one were to only read your post it would appear that the OP used the phrase and you were retaliating to it, a common enough tactic on here.

In other words you took my quotation out of context by assuming the source was the OP yet somehow that's my fault? OK; I'm glad that was your last offering on that subject.

Anyway, I shall step aside and let you continue, not least because if you agree with Nobby yet dispute his use of Hock you can't be wrong - or right for that matter.

No, I'm saying I agree with Nobby's use then, not his use now. Surely that's not too difficult to comprehend?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:50 am  

Alex BP' wrote:

*When used correctly.

My point entirely; I believe the correct use of Hock is from the bench against a tiring defence. Not from the outset when he is 3-man tackled out of the game.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:51 am  

jackdog wrote:

It's because Hock's a very good player. Perhaps our best.

In your opinion and your line of argument we should also start with Feka then? Easily our best Prop and one of our best players.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:54 am  

jackdog wrote:

Wind your necks in pazzers, my position is substantial enough already, believe me. Any substantialer and I'll need a bigger basket.

I just wish all the so-called 'experts' -- you know the ones...our head coach and his staff etc. -- would learn to listen to the views of the majority of experienced website posters. In fact, I think forum posters should actually 'elect' the team.

..And I reserve the right to further turgidity until dinner time.

tur·gid (tûrjd)
adj.
1. Excessively ornate or complex in style or language; grandiloquent: turgid prose.
2. Swollen or distended, as from a fluid; bloated: a turgid bladder; turgid veins.

Do you mean rigidity?