Chiefs beat Sarries

[Roly]

Chiefs beat Sarries as the OP says, but they didn't beat the proper Sarries, and that's the one that includes Brad Barritt, that bloke who was between Owen Farrell and Manu Tuilagi when England turned over the All Blacks and the combination that England may yet still turn to come 2019 should they continue to fold under pressure!

Laugh? I nearly :censored: myself!

So a Saracens without Barritt isn't the 'real Saracens'?

Tell me you're on a wind up?

[h's dad]

Chiefs beat Sarries as the OP says, but they didn't beat the proper Sarries, and that's the one that includes Brad Barritt, that bloke who was between Owen Farrell and Manu Tuilagi when England turned over the All Blacks and the combination that England may yet still turn to come 2019 should they continue to fold under pressure!

Laugh? I nearly :censored: myself!

So a Saracens without Barritt isn't the 'real Saracens'?

Tell me you're on a wind up?

The same way most of the NZ team were last time England beat them? When you're talking about 'proper'teams BFG, be consistent.

[BFG]

Chiefs beat Sarries as the OP says, but they didn't beat the proper Sarries, and that's the one that includes Brad Barritt, that bloke who was between Owen Farrell and Manu Tuilagi when England turned over the All Blacks and the combination that England may yet still turn to come 2019 should they continue to fold under pressure!

Laugh? I nearly :censored: myself!

So a Saracens without Barritt isn't the 'real Saracens'?

Tell me you're on a wind up?

The same way most of the NZ team were last time England beat them? When you're talking about 'proper'teams BFG, be consistent.

And I'm sure you would've had you not already emptied it on here Roly!

Proper Sarries, to clarify as in defence comes first.
Sarries losing Barritt is as influential as Exeter losing Nowell would be in their fast and loose style of play, or Leicester losing Tuilagi has been, which is very!
If England don't learn to close out high pressure matches like Ireland 2017 then I could well see a place for Barritt.
I rate him massively higher than Te'o anyway and I'd take Barritt above any current 12 in England, just my opinion.

[Roly]

And I'm sure you would've had you not already emptied it on here Roly!

Judging by your post about the 'real Saracens', it seems that emptying (censored) onto the forum is something I may have been very good at, but I will have to accept that i'm now clearly in your shadow.

[BFG]

And I'm sure you would've had you not already emptied it on here Roly!

Judging by your post about the 'real Saracens', it seems that emptying (censored) onto the forum is something I may have been very good at, but I will have to accept that i'm now clearly in your shadow.

I don't doubt that Roly, I humbly accept that I can smell as bad as I can good but I do occasionally come up for air whereas you stay stuck in the sewer and will continue to do so until you learn to debate and learn from the discussion rather than being so dismissive.

It's pretty obvious that Brad Barritt is a key Saracens player and to deny it is stupidity!
Sarries basic game plan revolves around shutting down the opposition in defence and 12 is a key position in that game plan and Barritt is currently one of the best at it whilst in attack Barritt is also a key player in trucking it up through the middle to keep it tight and keep possession close to that big pack until it's time to get wider.
It's one of the most basic styles of rugby you will ever find and done right with the right personnel like Barritt it is extremely effective.
It's why Leicester signed De Villiers but obviously personalities got in the way of what was basically a great idea for the team had it worked.
That's what Sarries do, they aren't wrong are they?
Inside centre is a key position in terms of defence and attacking game plan and one that Leicester really need to address which I believe they did with Toomua but unfortunately injury affected this, as injury affected Sarries against Chiefs when losing Barritt last weekend!

[Roly]

And I'm sure you would've had you not already emptied it on here Roly!

Judging by your post about the 'real Saracens', it seems that emptying (censored) onto the forum is something I may have been very good at, but I will have to accept that i'm now clearly in your shadow.

I don't doubt that Roly, I humbly accept that I can smell as bad as I can good but I do occasionally come up for air whereas you stay stuck in the sewer and will continue to do so until you learn to debate and learn from the discussion rather than being so dismissive.

It's pretty obvious that Brad Barritt is a key Saracens player and to deny it is stupidity!
Sarries basic game plan revolves around shutting down the opposition in defence and 12 is a key position in that game plan and Barritt is currently one of the best at it whilst in attack Barritt is also a key player in trucking it up through the middle to keep it tight and keep possession close to that big pack until it's time to get wider.
It's one of the most basic styles of rugby you will ever find and done right with the right personnel like Barritt it is extremely effective.
It's why Leicester signed De Villiers but obviously personalities got in the way of what was basically a great idea for the team had it worked.
That's what Sarries do, they aren't wrong are they?
Inside centre is a key position in terms of defence and attacking game plan and one that Leicester really need to address which I believe they did with Toomua but unfortunately injury affected this, as injury affected Sarries against Chiefs when losing Barritt last weekend!

Nonetheless, nobody doubts Barritt's ability, so to suggest that Chiefs didn't beat the 'Real Saracens' because e wasn't playing, is quite clearly nonsense.

As is your suggestion that I need to learn to debate. Oh, I can debate with the best of them, could probably debate you under the table old boy, but when faced with nonsense, I tend to respond in kind.

I'll do you a deal. You stop talking rubbish, and i'll debate with you.

[BFG]

Roly

Nonetheless, nobody doubts Barritt's ability, so to suggest that Chiefs didn't beat the 'Real Saracens' because e wasn't playing, is quite clearly nonsense.

As is your suggestion that I need to learn to debate. Oh, I can debate with the best of them, could probably debate you under the table old boy, but when faced with nonsense, I tend to respond in kind.

I'll do you a deal. You stop talking rubbish, and i'll debate with you.

I didn't suggest Chiefs didn't beat the real Saracens, you seem to have misread something and got confused, I see no reference to real Saracens.
What I did suggest was Chiefs didn't beat proper Saracens, and then saw your response and another and realised I should clarify proper as in defensively.
Now I've got to go further for the stupid one!
Sorry I couldn't help that dig, I was also once impetuous like you and also like you a little gullible with it, and then one day I grew up, just a little bit!
Proper as defined in regular or established.
So just for you Roly one more time my meaning of Chiefs not beating the proper Saracens is as in regular or established defence when missing Brad Barritt last weekend!
I see nothing out of order here to be honest and think that's fair enough, do you not?
I've responded early today so we don't clog up the forum and begin to bore people going back and forth repeating the same, that's the only rubbish here!

[tigercaspian]

What a lot of old codswallop! Chiefs won, Sarries lost, Chiefs are in the final........simples!

[BFG]

What a lot of old codswallop! Chiefs won, Sarries lost, Chiefs are in the final........simples!

Lucky IMO, in both officiating last weekend and that they are one of the top teams with the least injuries, although I would accept that it's possible that Chiefs may have made some of their own luck on the injury front in what appear to be very high fitness levels but then were still lucky to face a tired and injury affected Saracens.
Injuries are possibly the most valid reason to dislike the play offs, they turn a season long league competition into a knockout cup competition which increases the importance of having your best players available massively.

[Roly]

Roly

Nonetheless, nobody doubts Barritt's ability, so to suggest that Chiefs didn't beat the 'Real Saracens' because e wasn't playing, is quite clearly nonsense.

As is your suggestion that I need to learn to debate. Oh, I can debate with the best of them, could probably debate you under the table old boy, but when faced with nonsense, I tend to respond in kind.

I'll do you a deal. You stop talking rubbish, and i'll debate with you.

I didn't suggest Chiefs didn't beat the real Saracens, you seem to have misread something and got confused, I see no reference to real Saracens.
What I did suggest was Chiefs didn't beat proper Saracens, and then saw your response and another and realised I should clarify proper as in defensively.
Now I've got to go further for the stupid one!
Sorry I couldn't help that dig, I was also once impetuous like you and also like you a little gullible with it, and then one day I grew up, just a little bit!
Proper as defined in regular or established.
So just for you Roly one more time my meaning of Chiefs not beating the proper Saracens is as in regular or established defence when missing Brad Barritt last weekend!
I see nothing out of order here to be honest and think that's fair enough, do you not?
I've responded early today so we don't clog up the forum and begin to bore people going back and forth repeating the same, that's the only rubbish here!

So actually, what you mean is, you've been caught out writing nonsense, are a little embarrassed and have responded by insulting me....

And you suggest I'm 'stupid', 'gullible' (although what being gullible has to do within the context of this discussion is beyond me - and I suspect most people) and should 'grow up'?

I just had to remind myself what the difference between hypocrisy and irony was.

You're now desperately trying to change your story with regards to definitions. You imply that Saracens are a weaker side without Barritt. That is patently and demonstrably untrue.

So, now I've got to go further for the (complete as appropriate) one!

Your statement is nonsense.

[BFG]

So actually, what you mean is, you've been caught out writing nonsense, are a little embarrassed and have responded by insulting me....

And you suggest I'm 'stupid', 'gullible' (although what being gullible has to do within the context of this discussion is beyond me - and I suspect most people) and should 'grow up'?

I just had to remind myself what the difference between hypocrisy and irony was.

You're now desperately trying to change your story with regards to definitions. You imply that Saracens are a weaker side without Barritt. That is patently and demonstrably untrue.

So, now I've got to go further for the (complete as appropriate) one!

Your statement is nonsense.

That's your problem Roly and not mine!
I should add you mention context which is very apt, an individuals post is written in their context and should not automatically be taken that the context in which it is read is the correct one.
There are two sides to a story, opinions differ and so on, we had a misunderstanding but it began with your mistake, it's as simple as that.
What could and should be a healthy debate descends into mud slinging with you, it started in your very first response.
I put it down to being impetuous but I could be wrong as I don't know you, it could just be that you are a complete twit!

[Roly]

So actually, what you mean is, you've been caught out writing nonsense, are a little embarrassed and have responded by insulting me....

And you suggest I'm 'stupid', 'gullible' (although what being gullible has to do within the context of this discussion is beyond me - and I suspect most people) and should 'grow up'?

I just had to remind myself what the difference between hypocrisy and irony was.

You're now desperately trying to change your story with regards to definitions. You imply that Saracens are a weaker side without Barritt. That is patently and demonstrably untrue.

So, now I've got to go further for the (complete as appropriate) one!

Your statement is nonsense.

That's your problem Roly and not mine!
I should add you mention context which is very apt, an individuals post is written in their context and should not automatically be taken that the context in which it is read is the correct one.
There are two sides to a story, opinions differ and so on, we had a misunderstanding but it began with your mistake, it's as simple as that.
What could and should be a healthy debate descends into mud slinging with you, it started in your very first response.
I put it down to being impetuous but I could be wrong as I don't know you, it could just be that you are a complete twit!

'Real' or 'Proper', it's irrelevant, as your statement was nonsense by definition of either.

You're just tying yourself up in knots now, and being insulting with it. It's hilarious.

[Tigerbeat]

Can we stay away from the insults please?

[BFG]

Can we stay away from the insults please?

Apologies, just trying to explain to Roly that a post should be taken in the context of how it is written and not how it is read.
I had a drink that said coke on the bottle last night, goodness knows what some would make of it but I'd bet I could guess a deriding post in response Roly style, yes before you express your impetuous wit Roly no I am not high!

[h's dad]

Can we stay away from the insults please?

Apologies, just trying to explain to Roly that a post should be taken in the context of how it is written and not how it is read.
I had a drink that said coke on the bottle last night, goodness knows what some would make of it but I'd bet I could guess a deriding post in response Roly style, yes before you express your impetuous wit Roly no I am not high!

Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering. Although it is ironically amusing to see Roly competing with convoluted semantic gymnastics