Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Huge, post: 3259273, member: 1992"] ****, glad you're not my accountant! No, it's equal to 240 in 600, thereabouts. What don't you get? Croft scored first, when everyone was fresh and the game was anyone's. It's the tries scored later when the opposition had given up that mean little. I already acknowledged your point but **** me, you want to portray it as though his team would have been better off without Croft ffs! No way will I accept that he was terrible and nothing you can write will convince me of that. Why? Because it's shit. I said he was okay. That means he was average. He certainly wasn't terrible. If he was poor in defence and conceded 3 tries, sure but his defence was the usual 90+% and his attack was okay, average. You got to get off the hate train. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 278 (members: 0, guests: 278)