I was...............the MM comment related to the fact that he was not out coached this week. Read that as + or -.Lone Ranger wrote:No problem at all with the comments on poor quarters. But what purpose did the MM comment related to last week serve. We all argued our cases last week about that but you just had to bring it up again and show your anti MM bias. If you want to have a go at MM, at least discuss something relevant from this week.Snoop Dog wrote:Lone Ranger wrote:Couldnt just be satisfied with a solid win could you. Just had to still find a way to have a dig. Very sad.Snoop Dog wrote:Much like last week we played 2 good qtrs and 2 pretty poor ones. Only difference was that this week there was no Neil Craig to outfox MM.
I think you would find most people who are not tainted with to much bias would say there is nothing unfair about that commnet. It certainly wasnt meant as a dig, rather a statement of fact.
You could not argue that we played 2 poor quarters yesterday. The first half was very scrappy. All the Aw and C9 commentators thought so.
Equally, Craig reacted by changing his plan when we got over the top of them last week. It worked for him and they went on to win. Smart coaching. Yesterday, Clarkson did not react to Rocca......and you would have to be on another planet to think the failure to do that cost them a number of goals. Commentators on AW and 9 agreed.
Anyway, you are clearly an MM fan who cannot hear any critiscm of him. Frankly I am neither a big fan or detractor. Can find arguments to both ends. One win certainly doesnt change my view. 13 and a finals appearance and win will!!!!!!
I think we would both agree that would be fantastic.