Matthew Scarlett - Washed up hack

Remove this Banner Ad

He's deteriorating by the week. Pencilling in a bag for Lloyd in round 10. That is if Scarlett bothers to have him as an opponent.



This would be the same Lloyd who scored a whopping, um, 0 last week against Port ......................


If Scarlett is a hack then what does that make Lloyd ???
 

Log in to remove this ad.

He's deteriorating by the week. Pencilling in a bag for Lloyd in round 10. That is if Scarlett bothers to have him as an opponent.
You are really losing all credibility as a poster here. It's not even worth arguing.
 
hmmm last week people were saying that Scarlett was Geelong's most important player after Hawthorn's surge in the last quarter when Scarlett was on the bench and now this week he is apparently a washed up hack whose flaws are masked by the abilities of the defenders around him. wtf is going on there?

You need to realize that no Geelong player is actually any good.

Someone else always makes them look 100 times better than they really are.
 
I love it how Scarlett doesn't have the guts to overrule his matchday assignment and just do whatever he wants. Harry Taylor got valuable experience on Richo for a while and then Scarlett went on him when he started getting on top.

You still haven't come up with a response to Kingsley's 7 goals on Fletcher.
 
Yes im sure scarletts shaking in his boots at the thought of playing on the awsome essendon forwards! What round is it that we get to bend the bombers over again? Looking forward to it already...
 
Kent Kingsley kicked 7 goals on Dustin Fletcher when Essendon were good.

This is absolutely the dumbest troll I've ever read.

Game, set and match. :thumbsu:

Hale 8 goals on Scarlett. :eek::eek::D:thumbsu:

More like 4 goals on Scarlo in 3 and a half quarters, with Hale having the favourtism of the umpires. But let's not have the facts get in the way of a s**thouse troll.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Game, set and match. :thumbsu:



More like 4 goals on Scarlo in 3 and a half quarters, with Hale having the favourtism of the umpires. But let's not have the facts get in the way of a s**thouse troll.
Facts are facts. 8 goals by his opponent, no amount of bitching about the umpires changes that. The fact that Scarlett had to be moved off him when getting bent over only furthers my point.
 
Facts are facts. 8 goals by his opponent, no amount of bitching about the umpires changes that. The fact that Scarlett had to be moved off him when getting bent over only furthers my point.
Scarlett was moved onto him after he'd kicked 4, and one of them was a soft free kick against Harry Taylor while Scarlett was rebounding. So Scarlett conceded 3 goals.

You're drowning.
 
Scarlett was moved onto him after he'd kicked 4, and one of them was a soft free kick against Harry Taylor while Scarlett was rebounding. So Scarlett conceded 3 goals.

You're drowning.
Techincalities. At the rate he conceded goals on Hale it would have been 8.

When you break it down he was pantsed by a complete hack, while playing with the support of the midfield that possesses the ball more than any other team in history, meaning that the defence is under less pressure than any other team in history. Fletcher wouldn't have let his opponent get a touch if put in the same situation.
 
Techincalities. At the rate he conceded goals on Hale it would have been 8.

When you break it down he was pantsed by a complete hack, while playing with the support of the midfield that possesses the ball more than any other team in history, meaning that the defence is under less pressure than any other team in history. Fletcher wouldn't have let his opponent get a touch if put in the same situation.
3 goals in 2 and a half quarters - at that rate in a full game he would have conceded 4 or 5.

And how is it a technicality that you said he got moved off Hale because he was getting beaten, when the truth is that he got moved on him because Taylor was getting beaten.

Still pulling bullshit out of your ass. Keep at it!
 
3 goals in 2 and a half quarters - at that rate in a full game he would have conceded 4 or 5.

Still pulling bullshit out of your ass. Keep at it!

His argument is about as convincing as a Matty Lloyd dive.
 
3 goals in 2 and a half quarters - at that rate in a full game he would have conceded 4 or 5.

And how is it a technicality that you said he got moved off Hale because he was getting beaten, when the truth is that he got moved on him because Taylor was getting beaten.

Still pulling bullshit out of your ass. Keep at it!
It's a technicality because it was more humiliating than any Fletcher performance, Kent Kingley or no Kent Kingsley.
 
It's a technicality because it was more humiliating than any Fletcher performance, Kent Kingley or no Kent Kingsley.
So conceding 3 goals to David Hale is more humiliating than conceding 7 goals to Kent Kingsley?

Great argument!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Matthew Scarlett - Washed up hack

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top