The article is from 2007. I can't find the original link as it's now gone from the website.

Right. I was hoping you'd say that. Because in your quote, you make out that he made the sentence that Chase brought something new to the squad, and then in the next sentence went on about his attacking abilities and you yourself have made the implication that one follows on from the other whereas it is reasonable to assume they didn't.

It's a classic case of someone trying too hard to find fault in someone where none exists.

Sorry. "Reasonable to assume?" You don't have to "assume" anything - just watch the video.

Fortnuately, I have better things to do than look for reasons to find fault in McNamara, and he does a good enough job of providing them on a plate anyhow

Except this isn't a discussion about how much better a public speaker I am than Steve McNamara, or Oscar Wilde is it? If you're gonna bother posting, at least stick to what we're discussing in this thread and respond to the salient points of the argument.

Clearly, you interpret McNamara's comments quite differently to me - I'm just keen to understand how that could be, and for a laugh, what your understanding is. As a reminder, this is precisely what he said, and in this order, so please let me know where I'm going wrong.

[i"He's got something different to a lot of most players. He's certainaly a very attacking player; brings a lot of new dimensions to some things we could possibly do if he makes the team, and would certainly make an impact."[/i

"If I'm gonna bother posting"? Who the do you think you are? The board police? I'll post if I want.



I already did let you know where you went wrong. You wrongly assumed because he said Rangi Chase had something different and went on to praise his attacking ability that it meant none of the other players had any attacking ability. Playschool stuff really.

Laugh away, laughing boy.