Can't defend your position head on so just be facetious instead - so edgy.
Perfectly capable of doing it, but since you chose to misinterpret what I wrote and then went off on one, I chose to ignore your 'astounding logic'.
It's quite logical - if you think about it logically.
No, your logic is flawed.
No it isn't.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
Re England. Difficult to prove but the critical match was Ireland England where a lack of team physicality in general and a poor performance from JJ were major contributors to England's loss. An extra 20kg of fit, on-form, world respected player at 13 could well have made the difference between 'champions' and GS winners.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:No, your logic is flawed.
No it isn't.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
Yes It is - as for you subsequent condescension I showed my working but you chose to remove it from the quote so no marks for you. Nothing I said was to do with grammar, it is about your incoherence and the difference between what you think you wrote and what you actually wrote. If your intention is so crystal clear how did both Iain and I managed to misinterpret it?
As for what you're asking for now (synopsis) is completely irrelevant to your previous point that Manu's return - would/could/should/who knows depending on your most recent whim - be regressive.
I'm merely pointing out that his return may or may not be beneficial, but to pre-determine it either way shows you don't employ any kind of critical thinking, instead you blather on mindlessly until everyone around you agrees or gives up.
Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:No, your logic is flawed.
No it isn't.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
Yes It is - as for you subsequent condescension I showed my working but you chose to remove it from the quote so no marks for you. Nothing I said was to do with grammar, it is about your incoherence and the difference between what you think you wrote and what you actually wrote. If your intention is so crystal clear how did both Iain and I managed to misinterpret it?
As for what you're asking for now (synopsis) is completely irrelevant to your previous point that Manu's return - would/could/should/who knows depending on your most recent whim - be regressive.
I'm merely pointing out that his return may or may not be beneficial, but to pre-determine it either way shows you don't employ any kind of critical thinking, instead you blather on mindlessly until everyone around you agrees or gives up.
So, you infer that my opinion that the backline hasn't missed Tuilagi was nonsense ('I don't even know here to start') and then concede that his return may, or may not have been beneficial.
There isn't anything wrong with my critical thinking. I could just as easily level the same accusation at you, but that would be wrong wouldn't it - because the thought processes in place here don't correlate to problem solving per ce, they relate to opinion.
On the other hand, pedantry, or pre-disposed disagreement (how did both Iain and I managed to misinterpret it?) - that's alive and well - particularly when attempting to discredit the opinion of another by giving the (usually false) impression that you're more intelligent than they are - or in quite a lot of cases than you actually are yourself. You just gotta love bookworms.
Last edited by Roly on Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:16 am, edited 5 times in total.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
Re England. Difficult to prove but the critical match was Ireland England where a lack of team physicality in general and a poor performance from JJ were major contributors to England's loss. An extra 20kg of fit, on-form, world respected player at 13 could well have made the difference between 'champions' and GS winners.
One game then. And that's a maybe.
When was the last time he made a difference for England (or his club for that matter)? will he feature at all for England this year? and if he were even to be considered for an England spot, would it be right that he'd replace the incumbent who didn't really have a bad 6N, in a team that apart from one game, was on the verge of a historical run of wins? (pretty much in his almost complete absence). I was thinking in more holistic terms, where it is demonstrable that his absence has not significantly been of determent to the team's achievements.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Being a grammar Nazi, on the other hand, despite the fact that it is quite clear what the intention of my original thought was, is simply pathetic.
But since you're here, please do start with a synopsis of backline performance with and without Manu. Show your working. Extra credit available for explanation as to how a side with him playing regularly this season would have finished higher than 4th in the AP, or how an England side without him is currently 2nd in the world, and 6N champions 2nd year on the bounce.
Re England. Difficult to prove but the critical match was Ireland England where a lack of team physicality in general and a poor performance from JJ were major contributors to England's loss. An extra 20kg of fit, on-form, world respected player at 13 could well have made the difference between 'champions' and GS winners.
One game then. And that's a maybe.
When was the last time he made a difference for England (or his club for that matter)? will he feature at all for England this year? and if he were even to be considered for an England spot, would it be right that he'd replace the incumbent who didn't really have a bad 6N, in a team that apart from one game, was on the verge of a historical run of wins? (pretty much in his almost complete absence). I was thinking in more holistic terms, where it is demonstrable that his absence has not significantly been of determent to the team's achievements.
Solely in terms of winning matches, yes it is demonstrable that his absence has not been detrimental. Anything else is 100% hypothetical as we don't know how the team would have played with Manu present. So much for thinking holistically.
Cagey Tiger wrote: Anything else is 100% hypothetical as we don't know how the team would have played with Manu present.
Except that we do, because what is also demonstrable is how previous coaches built their game plans around him....
What a load of twaddle. EJ is not previous coaches as is demonstrable by the way that he has utilised the vast majority of the squad used by SL to achieve superior results. Any comments on how EJ would have used him if available is still 100% speculation.
Cagey Tiger wrote: Anything else is 100% hypothetical as we don't know how the team would have played with Manu present.
Except that we do, because what is also demonstrable is how previous coaches built their game plans around him....
What a load of twaddle. EJ is not previous coaches as is demonstrable by the way that he has utilised the vast majority of the squad used by SL to achieve superior results. Any comments on how EJ would have used him if available is still 100% speculation.
Alright, I admit I got a little mixed up between past and present there. Yes, you are right.
My point is (was) that his club may have missed him (play-off contenders?) but his country almost certainly hasn't - maybe bar one match. You'd have to be very careful if you were Jones because an immediate reinstatement could send out the wrong messages to the largely settled team.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Roly wrote:Alright, I admit I got a little mixed up between past and present there. Yes, you are right.
My point is (was) that his club may have missed him (play-off contenders?) but his country almost certainly hasn't - maybe bar one match. You'd have to be very careful if you were Jones because an immediate reinstatement could send out the wrong messages to the largely settled team.
Excuse me, Who suggested immediate reinstatement? Sure it's up to Manu to demonstrate injury recovery, fitness and form before he gets a sniff at the squad. Especially when things look to be going reasonably well for the national side (despite a whole series of mediocre performances in the 6N).
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Sorry, I couldn't help but post it after I saw the words Manu to leave on the BBC site. Naughty step for me!
Tuilagi leaving Tigers wouldn't make a scrap of difference, for club or country. But i'll bet there's still a few who'd go into mourning if he did.
Some confusion between assertion and logical reasoning on this thread.
This is a quote from Eddie Jones:
“He’s got to rehab now, keep mentally positive and he will be back in the mix - and could play in the World Cup-winning final side. He’s got that incredible power which separates him from other players.”
Which doesn't sound like a coach who thinks he wouldn't make a 'scrap of difference'.
Manu brings a threat in mid-field that few other players provide and to suggest Tigers haven't missed that is a interesting claim. If you think about it Tigers started the season with a game plan that included two of the best centres in world rugby. A third of the way in both are out for the season and the side, understandably IMHO, struggled to adapt. All things considered, to be challenging for 4th is some achievement.
kend wrote:
Manu brings a threat in mid-field that few other players provide and to suggest Tigers haven't missed that is a interesting claim. If you think about it Tigers started the season with a game plan that included two of the best centres in world rugby. A third of the way in both are out for the season and the side, understandably IMHO, struggled to adapt. All things considered, to be challenging for 4th is some achievement.
+1
Agree with this comment, though I fear it is far too reasoned and sensible for some posters on this forum.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
He has played T'eo which suggests he wishes to play a big, physical centre. Not too many would argue that if Manu returns to fitness and finds form he does that role as well as any centre in the world.
It is funny how on the forum some ordinary players get elevated to great status simply by having a long spell out injured, yet some become reduced to ordinary status simply by being absent.
“He’s got to rehab now, keep mentally positive and he will be back in the mix - and could play in the World Cup-winning final side. He’s got that incredible power which separates him from other players.”
Which doesn't sound like a coach who thinks he wouldn't make a 'scrap of difference'.
Manu brings a threat in mid-field that few other players provide and to suggest Tigers haven't missed that is a interesting claim. If you think about it Tigers started the season with a game plan that included two of the best centres in world rugby. A third of the way in both are out for the season and the side, understandably IMHO, struggled to adapt. All things considered, to be challenging for 4th is some achievement.
He's also got a very weak groin area which is likely the result of an underlying medical problem (previously discussed on this forum) and i'll be a monkey's trumpet if he ever returns to anything like his full (previous) fitness.
To reach 4th place is a big achievement - I've already said it - but its debateable if having Manu playing would have made a difference in real terms.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
+1