Matthew Scarlett - Washed up hack

[Lunchlady Doris]

I remember Scarlett (which by the way must be the girliest name in the AFL) being dragged all the way up to the Geelong HF line by Rocca the last time the pies played you. So much so that your entire defence fell on its arse, and you were thumped by 86 points.

All players have bad games.

Wow, you're really bad at this.

Rocca sacrificing his game to try and nullify Scarlett says more about how much Collingwood rate him than anything else. That doesn't even equal Scarlett having a bad game. Rocca did nothing, Scarlett's job is done.

It is an improvement on the other 10 times they've played on each other, where Scarlett has r*ped Rocca and also given us plenty of drive. I guess that's the reason for your participation in this abortion of a thread.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You won't find any shortage of people outside Geelong who think SOS was a better full back than Scarlett. Scarlett's good (well he was until he slowed down), but he's not that good. Every Gary Pert was a better full back than Scarlett.

He's talking about the spelling of Silvagni there, knobend.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

If Richo was parked in the goal square Matty would man him Is that because he's too slow to man up on anyone that leaves the goal square?

Rarely..but that what happens if you have the courage to back yourself in And don't have the skills to backup your courage (which many would summarise as stupidity).

and that means what? It means he's a poor judge of the ball in flight, and his opponent is able to take advantage of this, and specy him.

Swish, nothing but fail.

Man, that was easy.

Making yourself look an idiot is not that hard.

 

[witsend]

Man, that was easy.

Sigh...no..it's because he creates run from full back..as for all the other shit...knock yourself out finding individual example of errors by AA players. There are thousands of examples of Scarlett finding space in traffic and pinpointing passes to our MFs in the corridor that led to goal opportunities.

Man...that was even easier!

 

[Bone Crusher]

Wow, you're really bad at this.

Rocca sacrificing his game to try and nullify Scarlett says more about how much Collingwood rate him than anything else.

If wasn't "Rocca", it was "Whoever is being picked up by Scarlett". Scarlett's run out of defence killed us the last few times we played you prior to that game. By running him up the ground like that, it impeded your run out of defence, and opened the door to allow 13 Collingwood players to score goals. It was the best coaching move of the game.

The fact that it worked to a tee says more than any poor quality troll you'll come back with.

That doesn't even equal Scarlett having a bad game. Rocca did nothing, Scarlett's job is done.

Well, he took more marks than any Geelong player that night, so I wouldn't say nothing. He also sang the club song after the game. All because he took your best backman to the other end of the ground. If Rocca is such a bad player, why did your best backman follow him to the other end of the ground? In fact, why was your best backman on him in the first place?

It is an improvement on the other 10 times they've played on each other, where Scarlett has r*ped Rocca and also given us plenty of drive.

Yes, that's why it was such a good move. A bit hard to drive the ball out of defence when you're on the half forward line. Good thing for us Scarlett is playing like a dog now, so we won't have to bother.

I guess that's the reason for your participation in this abortion of a thread.

Touchy.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Swish, nothing but fail.

Good comeback.

Making yourself look an idiot is not that hard.

Thanx for the example to illustrate that point.

 

[Bone Crusher]

There are thousands of examples of Scarlett finding space in traffic and pinpointing passes to our MFs in the corridor that led to goal opportunities.

I didn't mention anything about finding space in traffic.

Man...that was even easier!

I'd say lazy. You didn't address any of the points I raised.

 

[witsend]

I didn't mention anything about finding space in traffic.



I'd say lazy. You didn't address any of the points I raised.

You made a point?

 

[STC]

You won't find any shortage of people outside Geelong who think SOS was a better full back than Scarlett. Scarlett's good (well he was until he slowed down), but he's not that good. Every Gary Pert was a better full back than Scarlett.

You may have missed the point.

 

[Bone Crusher]

You made a point?

Yes, you should try it some time. It would be the perfect addition to your failing arguments.

You may have missed the point.

You're right. I didn't even notice that.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

If wasn't "Rocca", it was "Whoever is being picked up by Scarlett".

Do I need to show you your own post?

I remember Scarlett (which by the way must be the girliest name in the AFL) being dragged all the way up to the Geelong HF line by Rocca the last time the pies played you. So much so that your entire defence fell on its arse, and you were thumped by 86 points.

All players have bad games.

Scarlett's run out of defence killed us the last few times we played you prior to that game. By running him up the ground like that, it impeded your run out of defence, and opened the door to allow 13 Collingwood players to score goals. It was the best coaching move of the game.

The fact that it worked to a tee says more than any poor quality troll you'll come back with.

None of that has anything to do with Scarlett having a bad game. Remember, that's what the thread is about? Not about Mick Malthouse's coaching.

Well, he took more marks than any Geelong player that night, so I wouldn't say nothing. He also sang the club song after the game. All because he took your best backman to the other end of the ground. If Rocca is such a bad player, why did your best backman follow him to the other end of the ground? In fact, why was your best backman on him in the first place?

A key forward taking marks on the wing is usually a win to the defender, it's only because Scarlett is so good that anyone ever claims this as the greatest moment in Rocca's career.

Who else does Collingwood have that Scarlett would deign to oppose?

Yes, that's why it was such a good move. A bit hard to drive the ball out of defence when you're on the half forward line. Good thing for us Scarlett is playing like a dog now, so we won't have to bother.

We'll see how that goes for you in a couple of days I guess.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Thanx for the example to illustrate that point.

Good comeback. I know you are I said you are so what am I

 

[Bone Crusher]

Do I need to show you your own post?

You're missing the point. The tactic wasn't to sacrifice Rocca, it was to sacrifice the play being picked up by Scarlett. If Scarlett picked up Cloke, then Cloke would have been the one to take him up the ground.

None of that has anything to do with Scarlett having a bad game. Remember, that's what the thread is about? Not about Mick Malthouse's coaching.

Scarlett had a bad game because he was playing where Mick Malthouse wanted him playing. Took him out of the goal square, and he was useless.

A key forward taking marks on the wing is usually a win to the defender,

Don't be so narrow minded. It wasn't a win for the defender, it was a win for Collingwood. It's a team game, it's not about the individual. We had 13 goal scorers that game, largely because your best defender was up the other end of the ground. That's a win for us, not you.

it's only because Scarlett is so good that anyone ever claims this as the greatest moment in Rocca's career.

I never made that claim, nor have I see anyone else make it.

Who else does Collingwood have that Scarlett would deign to oppose?

Are you saying Rocca is the best forward in a team that beat the best of the best?

Cloke kicked 4 goals, and Medhurst kicked 3. Of course, it wouldn't have mattered if he'd gone onto Cloke, because Cloke would've just run him up the ground, and Rocca would have kicked the 4.

We'll see how that goes for you in a couple of days I guess.

Indeed.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Good comeback. I know you are I said you are so what am I

At least my argument consists of a little more than "Swish, nothing but fail". That's the quintessential example of hypocrisy.

 

[winty]

Has any other full back apart from Scarlett received Brownlow votes whilst their team has been thrashed by 75 points?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1529

 

[candiehappy]

Has any other full back apart from Scarlett received Brownlow votes whilst their team has been thrashed by 75 points?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1529

his dad?

 

[witsend]

You're missing the point. The tactic wasn't to sacrifice Rocca, it was to sacrifice the play being picked up by Scarlett. If Scarlett picked up Cloke, then Cloke would have been the one to take him up the ground.


Indeed.

Beautiful argument by you if the Thread is called "Anthony Rocca-Washed up hack-My coach wants me to play decoy on the wing."
If Scarlett's a washed up hack then why take him out of the play on purpose...BOOM..there goes your "point"!

 

[Bone Crusher]

Has any other full back apart from Scarlett received Brownlow votes whilst their team has been thrashed by 75 points?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1529

That was 7 years ago, and had no bearing on his being washed up today.

 

[witsend]

. We had 13 goal scorers that game, largely because your best defender was up the other end of the ground. That's a win for us, not you.

Thanks for the compliment but I thought you were arguing he's a washed up hack?

 

[Bone Crusher]

Beautiful argument by you if the Thread is called "Anthony Rocca-Washed up hack-My coach wants me to play decoy on the wing."

You do understand football is a team sport, don't you? How else would you get Scarlett to the other end of the ground? You do realise this is one of the key reasons we dominated the game, don't you? My God, some of you hacks are so simple minded.

If Scarlett's a washed up hack then why take him out of the play on purpose...BOOM..there goes your "point"!

I didn't say he was washed up last year. But if Rocca is such a hack, why put your best defender on him?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You're missing the point. The tactic wasn't to sacrifice Rocca, it was to sacrifice the play being picked up by Scarlett. If Scarlett picked up Cloke, then Cloke would have been the one to take him up the ground.

Can you tell me which other fullbacks Collingwood use this tactic for? What? None? Don't you see that you're just showing how good Scarlett is, and how highly your side and coach rate him

Scarlett had a bad game because he was playing where Mick Malthouse wanted him playing. Took him out of the goal square, and he was useless.

He wasn't useless at all, he was the cause of his direct opponent having minimal effect on the game, especially on the scoreboard. If it was anyone other than Scarlett, that is a win.

Don't be so narrow minded. It wasn't a win for the defender, it was a win for Collingwood. It's a team game, it's not about the individual. We had 13 goal scorers that game, largely because your best defender was up the other end of the ground. That's a win for us, not you.

You're only saying this because it is Scarlett we are talking about, again showing how good he is. A defender keeping his opponent away from goals and off the scoreboard is a defender who has done his job.

Because it's Scarlett, somehow the goalposts are moved. That's how good he is.

Cloke kicked 4 goals, and Medhurst kicked 3. Of course, it wouldn't have mattered if he'd gone onto Cloke, because Cloke would've just run him up the ground, and Rocca would have kicked the 4.

Again, Scarlett is pretty good huh.

I have a feeling Thursday night is going to be closer to the NAB Cup GF than Rd 9 last year.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

At least my argument consists of a little more than "Swish, nothing but fail". That's the quintessential example of hypocrisy.

Take a look at what you wrote, then tell me why anyone would bother with a serious reply to that shit? You are trying to tell us that Matthew Scarlett doesn't have skills, is too slow, and is a poor judge of the ball in flight. And yet his opponent has to drag him up to the wing to keep him out of our defense so you can actually kick goals?

You're embarassing yourself.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Thanks for the compliment but I thought you were arguing he's a washed up hack?

He is a washed up hack. I never said he was last year.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I didn't say he was washed up last year.

And the backpedalling begins

 

[Bone Crusher]

Take a look at what you wrote, then tell me why anyone would bother with a serious reply to that shit? You are trying to tell us that Matthew Scarlett doesn't have skills, is too slow, and is a poor judge of the ball in flight. And yet his opponent has to drag him up to the wing to keep him out of our defense so you can actually kick goals?

You're embarassing yourself.

You do understand the term "Washed up", don't you. I refers to a player who has lost his abilities, not to a player who never had any.