Wallabies 2012 Championship Squad

[barbarian]

Jiggles is just reacting to your verbal diarrhea, in a valid way I must say. Your points are really invalid and deserve all the piss that's being taken out of them.

What points? Why are they invalid?

Mate you seem to need to read the forum rules as well. By all means disagree with my post, but engage constructively. Play the ball not the man.
.

 

[Scotty]

that suggests we may even play with some width

Not if we pick Barnes at 10 and Horne at 13.

 

[Richo]

Not if we pick Barnes at 10 and Horne at 13.

Don't worry, Higgers will get picked for sure.

Edit: Dammit, what happened to that fishing emoticon?

 

[fatprop]

Not if we pick Barnes at 10 and Horne at 13.

I live in hope of Cooper at 10 & Barnes at 12

 

[qwerty51]

No one seems to have mentioned Fainga'a over Hanson..

Let's just hope he isn't required.

 

[I like to watch]

I'm not as confident in Barnes as I used to be.
Sure 12 suits him better than 10.But he did not shine at all for the Tahs this year.

 

[biggsy]

That's some rancid bait you've got there, buddy.

Rancid bait, good one.. Silly me ,he was the most inform hooker of season.

 

[qwerty51]

"There's an injection of players in areas where we historically haven't had a lot of depth, openside being an obvious one which is great for those two blokes (Gill and Hooper)," Deans said on Tuesday.

Really Robbie? Openside has always been an area of strong depth in Aus rugby..

 

[Slim 293]

TPN is clearly the second best hooker in the country after Moore.......

 

[Scott Allen]

Jiggles what did I just say about posting sarcastic, petty shit?

This is a rugby forum and if you can't engage constructively in the debate then we will have to take action.


.

What points? Why are they invalid?

Mate you seem to need to read the forum rules as well. By all means disagree with my post, but engage constructively. Play the ball not the man.
.

Barbarian you seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

I point you to your comment on 26 July 2012 in response to Jiggles who said "Shame not to see Holmes there. Not sure what he has to do to get a call up." Seems like a perfectly constructive engagement to me but it prompted your sarcastic, petty comment "Play in a dominant scrum?"

I point you to your comment on 26 July 2012 in response to Jiggles on this comment. "Horne and McCabe are not slicers in attack, but they can and do chop people in defense. Pretty important with so many sides playing off pick and goes." Jiggles responded with "McCabe yes, but Horne?" Again seems like Jiggles simply expressed his opinion (that we all know you don't agree with) but it prompted your petty comment "Urgh, here we go again".

I point you to the comment from What 2040 on 30 July 2012 who said "AND won the Aussie Conference" which prompted your sarcastic comment "Ah OK, that's right. So obviously every Reds player deserves selection then."

If you're going to threaten others with action, then get your own house in order first.

Just because you don't agree with, or have heard enough of others opinions, doesn't mean you should play the man by threatening to use moderator status to censor views.

 

[barbarian]

OK wow. Let me go through this one by one.

Barbarian you seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

I point you to your comment on 26 July 2012 in response to Jiggles who said "Shame not to see Holmes there. Not sure what he has to do to get a call up." Seems like a perfectly constructive engagement to me but it prompted your sarcastic, petty comment "Play in a dominant scrum?"

How is this sarcastic or petty? I regard scrummaging to be hugely important to the selection of props. It may have been a slightly simplistic way to say it, but I think a more dominant scrummaging effort would probably result in a call-up.

Now of course you may debate this, and you are welcome to. But I can't see any spite in that post.

I point you to your comment on 26 July 2012 in response to Jiggles on this comment. "Horne and McCabe are not slicers in attack, but they can and do chop people in defense. Pretty important with so many sides playing off pick and goes." Jiggles responded with "McCabe yes, but Horne?" Again seems like Jiggles simply expressed his opinion (that we all know you don't agree with) but it prompted your petty comment "Urgh, here we go again".

This was a humerous quip that had nothing to do with my opinion at all. The Horne vs Fainga'a vs McCabe argument has been had 1000 times on here as you well know. We all have our opinions, and debate them robustly when the subject is brought up.

I was merely expressing my angst that we seemed to be about to have the debate for the 1001st time. It wasn't a comment on either player or any poster, and I struggle to see how it contravenes any forum rules or is spiteful or petty in any way.

I point you to the comment from What 2040 on 30 July 2012 who said "AND won the Aussie Conference" which prompted your sarcastic comment "Ah OK, that's right. So obviously every Reds player deserves selection then."

Here I was extending What2040's argument to it's logical end. It was a bit of hyperbole, sure, but hardly spiteful or insulting.

If you're going to threaten others with action, then get your own house in order first.

Just because you don't agree with, or have heard enough of others opinions, doesn't mean you should play the man by threatening to use moderator status to censor views.

I never 'censored' anyone's view here. I am trying to stop Jiggles and other posters resorting to petty, personal jibes rather than engaging in constructive debate, as per the forum rules. As a Moderator, this is my job.

If you are unhappy with my performance in doing this role you can take it up with the other mods. Similarly if you find a post of mine that contravenes forum rules (unlike the examples quoted here) then you are more than welcome to report it or in fact act on it yourself (you too are a moderator).

But I stand by all of my actions here and elsewhere.
.

 

[The Red Baron]

Like sands through the hourglass..

And here I was thinking that this was a thread about the Wallabies RC squad!

EDIT: I wonder if Robbie learned his lesson from the RWC by including Gill and Hooper to back up Pocock. I am worried about the prospect of Samo getting extensive gametime though.

 

[chequebalance]

What points? Why are they invalid?

Mate you seem to need to read the forum rules as well. By all means disagree with my post, but engage constructively. Play the ball not the man.
.

Schadenfreude said: ↑

How about you play the ball and not the man?​

Schad please hit 'report' if you don't think a post complies with the forum rules, as opposed to calling someone out in public and starting an argument.
.

 

[barbarian]

CB I was merely seeking clarification from Reido as to what elements of my post he found so objectionable, as I could not see myself. This could be my error, and would appreciate it being pointed out if that was the case.

This has probably been enough naval-gazing moderation discussion, what say we get back to talking some rugby?
.

 

[biggsy]

Like sands through the hourglass..

And here I was thinking that this was a thread about the Wallabies RC squad!

EDIT: I wonder if Robbie learned his lesson from the RWC by including Gill and Hooper to back up Pocock. I am worried about the prospect of Samo getting extensive gametime though.

Also learned his lesson about interchange earlier not 8-10 min left of the game... Pisses me off about him the most. The time he did use the bench earlier we won..

 

[Lee Grant]

Having said that, I think Jiggles has some valid points. I also think you're reading too much into them to think they are entirely sarcastic.

Nobody is saying they are entirely sarcastic. You can be sarcastic and make valid points, but when sarcasm repeatedly is used and readers like me get irritated, the valid point does not have the same impact. We think of the smart-arse sarcasm instead.

Jiggles - an open comment to you that I hope you and others will read. You may think that we moderators are being over-conservative and often we are, but there is a reason for it. We have seen rugby forums, like Sportal in the past, being destroyed by firstly, the sarcasm or insult - secondly the angry reaction - thirdly, fourthly etc, the verbal ping-pong.

It can become viral in a thread and can jump from one thread to another. Better to stop the "Firstly".

Therefore let us take a breath and end it without any parting shots - Jiggles and others inclined to shock: to concentrate on rugby content and not on remarks that you must know will upset the person you are responding to (playing the man not the message) - and moderators like me to stop wagging their fingers.

OK?

PS Jiggles - I thought the Gene Wilder thing was hilarious.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

So... back to rugby.

I think we will almost certainly play a 4-3 bench to accommodate Cooper on the bench. I think Fainga'a will start at 12 and we will have to see Mitchell on the bench.

My forwards bench would be Slipper (although I am expecting Alexander to get picked), TPN (although I am expecting him to start and for it to be Moore), Douglas (although I think it will be Simmons and Timani will start ), and Hooper.

Again, this is what I expect to see. Personally I'd be using McCabe's injury as a chance to return to 10 Cooper, 12 Barnes.

 

[Scotty]

No one seems to have mentioned Fainga'a over Hanson..

Let's just hope he isn't required.

Link obviously thinks Fainga'a is the better player and so do I. I'm not sure what evidence people base the Hanson is clearly better opinion on?

 

[Braveheart81]

Hanson has a much better haircut.

 

[qwerty51]

Oh just the first 20 minutes against the Sharks