Yeah it was really poorly defended by everyone involved. However the try in the 2nd half were the ball was kicked to the wing and then kicked back inside left me fuming, not one single Hull player reacted to either kick. By the time Wigan collected the ball to score it appeared to me that almost every single Wigan player was closer to our tryline than any of ours. In fact we just stood and watched it was pathetic.

Correct it should have.

I never made any analogies.




pmarrow said judging a team's performance based on a listening to a commentary on it is like judging a TV programme you haven't seen. That is a pathetic analogy.

Not really....

Id say he wasnt that far off.

Disagree mate.

If you haven't watched a TV programme you have no idea what happened.

If you have listened to a match commentary, whilst clearly you cannot form as clear an opinion as if you have actually seen the game, you have a good idea of how the team and individuals performed. Particularly if the commentary is unbiased as the Five Live was last night.

Maybe he isn't, but then it is quite possible in some instances to judge a TV programme without seeing it. For example, if ITV2 were showing a documentary about Anne Widecombe's fanny, you'd know without seeing it that it was horrible and messy. Rather like Hull's performance last night.

There you have it Wilf, " the quote of the week " for the diary mate!!!
give it 15 mins it will be on humberside that wideicombes minge reeks
cant blame Agar for that .....or can we....

add that to geek stats everyone raves about and you still have the square root of nowing nowt about what the fook went on at wigan ...

How does he know anne widicombes fanny is messy is a more important subject mind

Really?

You might want to think that statement through a bit more.

Say you didn't watch something on tv the other night, I don't know, lets say Lost. Your mate at work did watch it and tells you it was rubbish. Then someone else asks you what you thought of it. Do you tell him a) you don't know because you didn't see it, or b) it was rubbish?

By listening to the radio the commentators are giving you their own opinion, and you are then somehow trying to pass them off as your own. Yes they might be able to tell you what happened in the game, how the tries were scored etc, but you can find that out by reading the match report. Saying, "Richard Horne obviously had a good game because Gwilym told me so," is not a valid opinion (and I know those weren't your words before you start).

Must be a long way back to hull when your e then

No, it is not the same thing!

The commentators may give their opinions, e.g. "Tansey has been poor" or "Whiting should have scored" but they also provide facts, e.g. "Radford has been penalised" or "Hall has knocked on". You can listen to a commentary and form an opinion, based on what you have heard. For example I know Berrigan was quiet because his name was barely mentioned on Five Live.

In your analogy it would be like a friend describing in detail what happened in Lost minute by minute. If I hadn't listened to the commentary but someone told me "Hull were rubbish" then of course I couldn't form an opinion.

By the way, Lost was bloody brilliant this week