Wales -vs- Scotland

[Numbers]

Guys, guys - you're both very pretty.

I know this is the WMB, and you're very keen on internecine warfare.

But for this week of all weeks - don't you have a common enemy to unite against?

Aye, rather than criticising our coach, you misspelled petty

[Which Tyler]

Guys, guys - you're both very pretty.

I know this is the WMB, and you're very keen on internecine warfare.

But for this week of all weeks - don't you have a common enemy to unite against?

Aye, rather than criticising our coach, you misspelled petty

For the first time in my life - my spelling was perfick

[Son of Mathonwy]

You sort of intimated that when you remarked "Couldn't have put it better myself" when Which Tyler posted "Pivac?"

Gatland's function is to adopt the right personnel and tactics to suit the opposition we're facing, that's it, he doesn't coach the backs he's an ex hooker.

With regards to the skill set and playing attitude at the Scarlets that has been their policy for as long as I can remember, way before Pivac came onto the scene, what Pivac has done is develop a much better forward unit and sign players very astutely, he also seems to be very well liked which helps.

If you want to thank anyone for providing the more attacking style then Gareth Jenkins is your man as it's him who develops the player skillsets within the academy. If you listen to Pivac he has said previously that he lets the players take the options they feel comfortable with, the large majority of Scarlets tries coming from turnovers rather than set plays (driving lineouts excepted).

Anyway that's my view and you have yours so I'm not going to continue as, as you quite rightly say, it doesn't look like we'll agree.

"Sort of intimated"? Exactly. Maybe if you concentrate on what I actually say you won't find so much to disagree with.

You are being disingenuous, you obviously meant that and are now trying to back out of it, this is plain to see with most of your Gatland diatribes, it's a shame you can't comment on anything positively or constructively.

Just stick to what I've actually written. I'll defend what I've written, not what you imagine I've written.

If you argue with people based on what you imagine they believe, I expect you get into a lot of pointless arguments.

[Numbers]

"Sort of intimated"? Exactly. Maybe if you concentrate on what I actually say you won't find so much to disagree with.

You are being disingenuous, you obviously meant that and are now trying to back out of it, this is plain to see with most of your Gatland diatribes, it's a shame you can't comment on anything positively or constructively.

Just stick to what I've actually written. I'll defend what I've written, not what you imagine I've written.

If you argue with people based on what you imagine they believe, I expect you get into a lot of pointless arguments.

Only with people who don't actually have a point to make, you have failed to answer any of the rugby points I raised and just said "I didn't write that" when it is plain to see what is meant by your comments or are you attempting to deny that you wrote "couldn't put it better myself" in response to Pivac being stated as the one who deserves credit, what you have subsequently done is deny suggesting Pivac was responsible for Saturday's win, jesus for someone with Rodin's The Thinker as your avatar you don't actually do much thinking do you.

[kk67]

You are being disingenuous, you obviously meant that and are now trying to back out of it, this is plain to see with most of your Gatland diatribes, it's a shame you can't comment on anything positively or constructively.

Just stick to what I've actually written. I'll defend what I've written, not what you imagine I've written.

If you argue with people based on what you imagine they believe, I expect you get into a lot of pointless arguments.

Only with people who don't actually have a point to make,...

nice.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You are being disingenuous, you obviously meant that and are now trying to back out of it, this is plain to see with most of your Gatland diatribes, it's a shame you can't comment on anything positively or constructively.

Just stick to what I've actually written. I'll defend what I've written, not what you imagine I've written.

If you argue with people based on what you imagine they believe, I expect you get into a lot of pointless arguments.

Only with people who don't actually have a point to make, you have failed to answer any of the rugby points I raised and just said "I didn't write that" when it is plain to see what is meant by your comments or are you attempting to deny that you wrote "couldn't put it better myself" in response to Pivac being stated as the one who deserves credit, what you have subsequently done is deny suggesting Pivac was responsible for Saturday's win, jesus for someone with Rodin's The Thinker as your avatar you don't actually do much thinking do you.

I can't help you with this. Your disagreement with me is a figment of your imagination. If you want to continue it, you're welcome to do so with yourself.

[kk67]

I'm tempted to call Godwins law.