Yeah, fair enough. that's why I posted a wink.

[i"We introduced Buderus off the bench at this time, and the whole momentum changed. Much faster passing out of dummy half, and some good needed metres, along with supporting two of the breaks. That influenced that result big time."[/i

[i"You would have to be really really really biased to believe that.
Leeds were not very good, I will give you that, but the last 13 minutes were no different in preformance to the first 67. The difference was Ganson thought he had done enough by that point, and relaxed, and Leeds got the win. He was diabolically one sided throughtout that first 67 minutes."[/i

That's what you said, two contradicting accounts.

But if your reason is that you lie to win arguments with Wakefield fans then I can accept that

Why?

Where's the credibility in doing that?

ROFLMAO

Yuo claim he was instrumental in those wins. Offer nothing but your opinion and a suggestion we watch the video. You dismiss the opinions polls of the best player as irrelevant. Tony offers links to match ihghl;ights and you dismiss those as not relevant.

PMSL.

You have nothing do you? Nothing?

We're talking Gotcha here.

So, let's summarise.

4 specified games where gotcha's opinion in that Buderus was key to our victory.

Not featuring in supporters polls as one of the 3 best players is to be ignored.
Watching the highlights is to be ignored.
Please ignore the fact that he contradicts himself in past threads because he was lying on those occasions, but not now obviously.

This has potential to be another Phil daly for you Gotcha.

Probably true but I hoped you were different. What with this revelation coming so soon after Damo's truely sickening, depraved image from yesterday all my heroes are self destructing.

Really? I dismissed it did I? you sure about that? because my post certainly doesn't read like that, and Tony didn't take it that way.

I said it quite clearly. Lets use another example shall we. You constantly tell all and sundry on here that you don't need stats to tell you whether somebody had a good game. Do we agree on this? Do you not say that stats do not show the game changing moments in a game, moments where a big tackle is made that takes momentum away, or even dropping the ball? Do we agree here.

Then please enlighten me, why do you think 10 minutes of highlights are going to show you anything other than you will see from a stats sheet? i.e. someone making meters, someone scoring, someone giving a try assist. You see Gareth it doesn't, what the highlights show you is people scoring.

Now lets be honest here, was that really what I said.

I understand what you're saying don't worry.

Basically, to summarise, any evidence anybody puts forward to show your opinion was nonsense is not reliable because it shows your opinion as being nonsense.

Duly noted.

Without wanting to get dragged into this mini discussion too much, I agree that whilst teh highlights can give a bit more context to some stats, they will not always pick up either critical moments, or some form of pattern emerging. You tend to only get one or two plays before the try.

They are likely to miss a big hit which forces the ball out that allows a restart on halfway, or a quick play the ball which allows cheap meters to be made. With every action in a game having a consequence you'll never get a full picture from highlights, but they should generally give more info than stats, but are just as dangerous to soley rely on in a discussion.

I think its clear to say that as well as having an opinion on a player, and that is very subjective, different people could watch the game back again and see things completely differently anyway, based on emotion, player preference, skills preference.

As a player I consider my main strength my defence and stamina, so I think I rate the strong defence over long spells higher than a great step and break, wheras Gareth may appreciate big collissions and toughness as skills and rate a rampaging run or quick play the ball as higher. And emotion can play the biggest part in the interpretation of it. Someone in the thick of the crowd may see someone who puts in one or two huge hits that get the crowd going, and rate that as a key contribution, others may see games on Sky+ after knowing the result, and be more analytical in their viewing, and whilst approving of the big hits, may be less caught up in the action, and notice the guy who dominates the tackle over and over again, in the process of slowing the play the ball down, and allowing the defense to set.

For these reasons I enjoy good debates on Southstander. Everyone has opinions, and these are based on certain things, which is why I will not always agree with someones opinion, but if they can articulate the reasons why, and demonstrate a good understanding of the game I will at least respect it, other peoples opinions are worth less respect as they are never based on any sort of analysis.

Agree entirely with all that Leicester.

But somebody seems to want to use things when he wants them, and dismisses the same things when it doesn't help them.

Then top it off by making inaccurate statements of what is said.

If you agree with Leicester's articulate and thoroughly accurate post you should think carefully about this Gotcha.



Analysis is the key. Those who may or may not disagree with your position have justified their opinions. I gave the man of the match polls, Tony Soprano offered match highlights and another poster offered your own contradicting opinions from another thread.

What have YOU offered?

I suspect, though he's nicer than me so he won't say it, that Leicester Rhino might categorise you as one of the posters he respects less because your opinions are based upon no analysis at all. I shall not embarrass him to comment.

</backhandedcomplimentmodeon>





</backhandedcomplimentmodeoff>