I wouldn't have!

Regarding th first part of your post; that would be all well and good if the junior captain then fell away. However when subsequent coaches then go to pick him at senior level it becomes highly relevant. Incidentally, at least 2 of the things you state as reasons people are appointed captain at junior level , playing aility and attitude to training (some would say the 3rd too!), are also among the reasons someone is appointed at senior level. Again, do you see the 'relevance'?

As for your pasta analogy, that's utterly ridiculous! We're talking aout the captaincy not what they eat! If you were to say "Edwards and Farrell ate pasta as juniors and so were more likely to also eat pasta as seniors too" then it might have some relevance! Whether someone captained at any level is highly relevant to a discussion on captaincy. What they ate is not. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp or do you simply not understand the meaning of the word "relevant"?

The fact is the likes of Farrell, Edwards, Mike Gregory, Paul Sculthorpe and Sean O'loughlin were identified by different coaches at ALL levels they played at as captain material. It is not irrelevant at all, in fact it's highly relevant, THEY saw something in those players that made THEM think that those players had something about them that made them leaders.

Or would you prefer your theory that the parents watching chose the captain!!

Nah

You simply cannot cite School teachers as being a valid backup to your argument.

I take on board some of the later appointments, frankly it's baffling to me, but I can see the relevance there, but NOT schoolteachers.

If you can honestly say that Lockers is a good captain, then fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but I do wonder where you are looking.

The same place that former coaches and players looked? The question should be where are you looking that makes you feel you are more qualified than said past coaches and players?

This is where you (and many others on here) are going wrong.

The idea of a forum is to present your OPINION.

I have at no point stated that I am more qualified than any RL coach, past or present. Where on earth did that come from?

I have stated that, iin my opinion, Lockers is a poor captain. I have given reasons why I think that's the case.


The reaction of some on here (even making allowances for the fact that some posters are children) is laughable. It's as though I (and others who "dare" to post an opinion that is even slightly outside the mainstream), have incited a terrorist attack on the Galleries.

But you never simply post an opinion and leave it at that do you? You post an opinion and then proceed to state what you feel is wrong with other peoples, thus entering a debate. Are you then surprised when people attack your own views? If you want to challenge other peoples opinions and debate, then fully expect to have your own opinion challenged, we all do.

Oh let's be clear, I enjoy debate. But debate has to be valid and relevant for it to be useful.

By all means criticise and disagree with the points that I make, but stick to the facts.


e.g. Where have I ever said that I am more qualified than a RL coach?

The answer, is, of course, nowhere.

Therefore why state it?

You know quite well that meaning in language is implied as well as explicitly stated, and any reasonably intelligent person (which i'm assuming you are) has to consider both the implied and explicit meanings of statements that they make. If you don't mean an implication, then you should say so rather than simply say where did I state that.

Nope. The burden of proof must lie with the person making the statement.

The original poster cannot be expected to second guess every readers personal interpretation of their words.


Bearing that in mind, perhaps you would like to point out exactly where I said I was more qualified than an RL coach?

Again, don't you understand that claiming the aforementioned qualified coaches are/were wrong in appointing O'Loughlin implies you are better qualified to make that judgement than they are? Otherwise you would say something along the lines of "I understand that I'm not the best judge on this and that I'm probably wrong but...."

For a supposed intelligent man you struggle with even the most basic of definitions, don't you?

Actually that's horse and you know it, or do you not actually have any friends or interact with anybody on a social level apart from on a message board. To go around saying anything you like and not considering there may be implied meanings shows a real lack of empathy to other human beings.

Or is this just some virtual persona where you don't apply the normal social norms?

This thread is certainley winding other Wigan fans up and as predicted some are turning on each other cyber wise it just shows that even though we are all supporters of Wigan RL if people disagree about what peoples oppinions are they are daft.

Hmm...Coley, Leuluai, O'Loughlin, Bailey, Carmont?

like I said 3 weeks ago on here - please feel free to check!!!