What rational person would ever think Sinfield had any need to cover his ass anyway?

There are certain people that you take what they say at face value, people that have real credibility. Kevin Sinfield is one.

Then there is Gotcha.

What is it with you and the inability to read before jumping in?

Covering his ass was a figure of speech. In that he is the captain. The captain will always tow the line (support) his superior. Look back on his comments about all the previous coaches, especially about three months in to Bluey's reign.

HTH

Maybe it's your inability to type what you think you mean. Covering his ass is a simple term which is completely different to toeing the line or supporting his superior.

Put the tongue away, and grow up.

Whatever, it doesn't change that I am right what I put.

Firstly I'm not the one typing something then changing the meaning when what I have typed is questioned.

I am of the belief that the quote attributed to Sinfield goes a lot further than the generally bland statements of players about their coaches. Whilst I would question parts of his statement when looking at performances, the strength of the statement makes me think that Sinfield is whole hearted in his appraisal.

Although if I assume that Sinfield has your ability to communicate what you intended to say then what he said could have meant anything.

Yes, you were so confident in what you put that you've been back and edited it to explain that "covering his ass" meant something other than what anyone else would have thought it meant.
Well, that's what I think you've put, you'll probably say different.

Thank you for proving exactly my point about this little clique.

You haven't even read the edit at the bottom.

Oh well, it's not as if I really give a gnats chuff, you should at least know that by now.

I don't think I post enough on here to be classified as a member of a clique, but I'm sure that your interpretation of what you meant covers whatever you may or may not have said. I took exception to you suggesting that the most successful captain of Leeds ever had made the comments quoted as an ass covering exercise. I totally disagreed with that suggestion and held you to account for it. For this I have been told to "grow up" and been accused of being a member of a clique.

there are many discussions where I could post as part of a clique, when you are having your regular "debates" (sic) with G1 and others, but I choose not to get into these "debates" as they tend to turn me off RLFans, much as I ignore the agenda driven posts of some on here.

If the fact that I disagree with your comments upsets you then so be it but you attempts to put me down, tend to say a lot more about your goodself than my original comment.

If by dissagree you mean that you feel Sinfields comments were sincere and that he really did think McDermott the best, then I will apologise to you.

If you dissagree because of some childish agenda driven interpretation then obviously I stick by my comments.

Just because you think everyone is out to get you, it doesn't make you paranoid eh fella?

I've noticed a trend on here recently. If anyone disagrees with you, they're a fooking idiot. If anyone agrees with a poster who disagrees with you (which happens quite a lot amazingly), they're a bum licker or in a clique.

Perhaps you may wish to pause and reflect. You've been told by many different posters on here during the last few weeks about your tendancy to type something and claim you meant something different. I am pleased it's not just me. It's been posters that I have never met and do not know. Posters whose tongues have never been near my anus.

I think you need to tone down your aggression and maybe just proof read what you're typing before you hit submit, then you might have less issues and more credibility. I am sure you can put accross your meaning articulately enough during oral exchanges but you need to work harder on your written dialogue.

Just a freindly heads up.

Bless. Stop the sexy talk, and I wouldn't need to indulge.

I agree that Sinfields comments about McDermott go way beyond that of ass covering or towing the party line. There is being complimentary to your boss, and there is gushing praise on him. I think Sinfield is closer to the latter.

FWIW, my opinion the reason sinfield gushes so much is that the togetherness and belief that McDermott brings to the squad is unmatched. I think that the playuers want to play for each other. I think where we are missing is a real technical #2 who can work on the other aspects of the game which McDermott is not necessarily so hot on

That's my take on it too. Alternatively maybe there is technical proficiency there but it is deliberately being withheld for the playoffs with the coaching team taking the view that Leeds can get to the playoffs through grunt rather than exquisite rugby. Although that could be wishful thinking.

I have no idea how that proves anything about a clique.


Yes, I had.
It underlines the fact that your meaning is not the same as everyone else's.


Your giving (or not giving) of the aforesaid gnat's chuff is of total disinterest to me.

McDermott moved Sinfield from loose forward to stand-off, Sinfield has since generally defended one man in from the wing lightening his defensive duties in order to extend his career - IIRC Sinfield publicly lobbied for this positional change through the back pages of the YEP. Probably the same back pages where some time later he sung the praises of the current Leeds coach.

Some might form a subliminal connection between the two articles although obviously they would be entirely wrong to do so.