You dont read pauper do you. If you read the thread you would get the picture rather than nitpicking to suit your crusade.

Here is what I said:

Here are the factors.

Well Mo in 2007, we got slaughtered by injuries, our established players were either injured or performed worse than they did in 2006. Some significantly and our young brigade either stalled or went backwards.

But of course you saw us as "competitive" in 2007.

Nice try. But once a again you're the stooge!

Question no.1: Do you think Melbourne have a strong enough list to win the Premiership in 2007? (Assuming the side isn't cut down too badly by injuries)

Your response. Yes

Is this the same 2006 list that you've been lambasting over the past 6 months?

Question no.1: Do you think Melbourne have a strong enough list to win the Premiership in 2007? (Assuming the side isn't cut down too badly by injuries)

Your response. Yes

Is this the same 2006 list that you've been lambasting over the past 6 months?

You dont read well Mo.

There were a number of conditions required to be achieved and they were pretty core to achieving a higher placing on the ladder at the end of 2006. And I have spelled them out in the thread. They all had to be achieved because it was a big stretch from where we ended up at the end of 2006 to where we were aiming for as we were off the pace by a fair bit.

As it stood at the end of 2006 we were just a finals side. I still think we were. Nothing has changed. However, its was clear from even in the NAB games in early 2007 that there were signs of trouble. The expectation of senior players perfoming above and beyond their level was in severe jeopardy.

If anyone needs to do some revision it would be you. But skip the fantasy stuff Mo its becoming boring.

I have clearly substantiated my position but how about you substantiate your assessment of how competitive our list was 12 months ago? Come on I dare you.

I have clearly substantiated my position but how about you substantiate your assessment of how competitive our list was 12 months ago? Come on I dare you.

I have clearly substantiated my position but how about you substantiate your assessment of how competitive our list was 12 months ago? Come on I dare you.

i.e. "I've found a back-door out of my bold claim, so why can't you?"

But on the topic, I thought we'd be very good in 2007 and was incredibly disheartened by our year. So much so that I hardly went to a game. I felt so bad about that that I went to every Victorian game this year and never left early, no matter how badly we were doing. It was worth it. I feel good now.

i.e. "I've found a back-door out of my bold claim, so why can't you?"

Oh, come now, Chook! Not Rhino "teflon" Richards !

I shared Rhino's opinion that we had the list and the ability to win the flag in 2007. History shows us that we quite obviously did not. I was wrong there. Is there something wrong with that?

That said, I doubt there has ever been a team that was as torn apart by injuries as our side was in 2007. It's not an excuse, it's just the way it was.

I shared Rhino's opinion that we had the list and the ability to win the flag in 2007. History shows us that we quite obviously did not. I was wrong there. Is there something wrong with that?

That said, I doubt there has ever been a team that was as torn apart by injuries as our side was in 2007. It's not an excuse, it's just the way it was.

Don't forget the coach Nasher.

I shared Rhino's opinion that we had the list and the ability to win the flag in 2007. History shows us that we quite obviously did not. I was wrong there. Is there something wrong with that?

That said, I doubt there has ever been a team that was as torn apart by injuries as our side was in 2007. It's not an excuse, it's just the way it was.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion that turns out to be wrong. But in the case of Rhino, you can't honestly say that list that is capable of winning a flag 1 year, is unskilled and an absolute train wreck 12 months later, when Bailey inherited it.

I've been saying all along that our list isn't as bad as our results and performances this year.

The list is currently every bit as good as the 3 and 19 Win-Loss ratio suggests.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion that turns out to be wrong. But in the case of Rhino, you can't honestly say that list that is capable of winning a flag 1 year, is unskilled and an absolute train wreck 12 months later, when Bailey inherited it.

I've been saying all along that our list isn't as bad as our results and performances this year.

Another case of misrepresenting another posters point of view. Why do you do that? Is it because you cant support your own position despite being asked?

And you havent been able to put a half sensible rationale for the last sentence. You must have missed alot of 2007.