Print Page | Close Window

Barry John - Worst columnist ever?

Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: GENERAL RUGBY
Forum Description: Other rugby chat
URL: http://www.scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22123
Printed Date: 11 July 2020 at 2:31pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Barry John - Worst columnist ever?
Posted By: Gate12
Subject: Barry John - Worst columnist ever?
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 5:19pm
Says in the WOS today that Australia won for a number of reasons but principally due to their far superior 10-12 axis and then goes on to suggest that Wales should go with a Hook Henson combo but due to Hook not starting at 10 for the Sprays Wales may have to opt for Hook at 12 and Roberts at 13 which will allow Roberts to play like he did for the Lions.
 
There's so many holes in his argument its embarrassing, it's getting worse by the week, this probably sums up the whole article best:
 
Gatland has simply got to move Hook closer to the action where he can become involved again in some of the key decision making.



Replies:
Posted By: rolly
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 5:50pm
He's an idiot , i buy the wales on sunday every week . I aint read his column for years .


Posted By: kcreg
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Says in the WOS today that Australia won for a number of reasons but principally due to their far superior 10-12 axis and then goes on to suggest that Wales should go with a Hook Henson combo but due to Hook not starting at 10 for the Sprays Wales may have to opt for Hook at 12 and Roberts at 13 which will allow Roberts to play like he did for the Lions.
 
There's so many holes in his argument its embarrassing, it's getting worse by the week, this probably sums up the whole article best:
 
Gatland has simply got to move Hook closer to the action where he can become involved again in some of the key decision making.
don't forget now that he writes these comments after 2 bottles of whisky !!! thats good going fair play !!!

-------------
I WAS THERE-LIBERTY STADIUM 11/9/07 & 26/3/16

OSPREYS 9-SCARLETS 14!
OSPEYS 16-SCARLETS 25!


Posted By: Ow!
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 7:26pm
barry john's views are dated and irrelevant. why do the wales on sunday still print his ghastly little column? the 70s players were playing a different game to what we see thesedays. oh and they never beat the all blacks either. i'm tired of all of them in that rag of a paper. graham price as well. junk analysis and oh so predictable.

-------------
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'll never understand. A world of knowledge at your fingertips, and you play poker all night.












Posted By: Tumblescarlet
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 8:45pm
Dont know why?, but bought that great Anti Scarlet paper, the Wales osprey on sunday newspaper today and as usual there was the same drivel in it as normal.
    Managed to negotiate myself past Andy Howells rubbish without bursting into laughter at his pathetic attempts at rational journalism.But then i got to Barry John, a great player, but a crap pundit!!
    He basically blamed Wales' inept performances on Stephen Jones and Jon Davies, this i found staggering and initially sad until i remembered that this isnt the first time John has attacked Steve and the Scarlets.
  He is known in the area [Cefneithin] as having a lot of grudges against Llanelli and the Scarlets., so every now and again he likes to throw a few barbs our way.
      He is a massive Hook fan and cant beleive that Steve is ahead of Hook in the pecking order with Wales.Its just a shame that such a great player cant appreciate another great player because of his prejudices.


-------------
Wales only true rugby region.


Posted By: rolly
Date Posted: 29 November 2009 at 9:03pm
Originally posted by Tumblescarlet Tumblescarlet wrote:

Dont know why?, but bought that great Anti Scarlet paper, the Wales osprey on sunday newspaper today and as usual there was the same drivel in it as normal.
    Managed to negotiate myself past Andy Howells rubbish without bursting into laughter at his pathetic attempts at rational journalism.But then i got to Barry John, a great player, but a crap pundit!!
    He basically blamed Wales' inept performances on Stephen Jones and Jon Davies, this i found staggering and initially sad until i remembered that this isnt the first time John has attacked Steve and the Scarlets.
  He is known in the area [Cefneithin] as having a lot of grudges against Llanelli and the Scarlets., so every now and again he likes to throw a few barbs our way.
      He is a massive Hook fan and cant beleive that Steve is ahead of Hook in the pecking order with Wales.Its just a shame that such a great player cant appreciate another great player because of his prejudices.
I agree , he talks crap .
Its a shame really to see such a great of welsh rugby talk a load of rubbish .


Posted By: redeyes
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 8:05am
It's one thing suggesting Hook should play in the centre, but to suggest Henson plays alongside him when he's not even playing regional rugby just makes him look like a fool.
What a sad state of affairs when one of the greats comes out with such utter rubbish.


-------------
The stadium may change, but the dream will remain the same!




Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 8:44am

Step aside from BJ's comments for a second and just consider if you're happy with the current level of creativity in the backs?



Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 9:02am
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Step aside from BJ's comments for a second and just consider if you're happy with the current level of creativity in the backs?



That's what I was thinking. We're badly missing SOMETHING there - Hook at 12 seems the most reasonable option at the moment.

Look back at a Henson on top of his game and how much more threatening the backs looked. And Stephen jones was fly half then.

Part of it I think is overcoaching, slow ball and a low risk negative game plan, but there still seems to be an element of creativity lacking over these AIs when the ball did eventually get out. I can't remember the last backs try that wasn't a Shane Williams solo effort. And he won't always be around.


Posted By: jeremy windell
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 10:03am
Originally posted by kcreg kcreg wrote:

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Says in the WOS today that Australia won for a number of reasons but principally due to their far superior 10-12 axis and then goes on to suggest that Wales should go with a Hook Henson combo but due to Hook not starting at 10 for the Sprays Wales may have to opt for Hook at 12 and Roberts at 13 which will allow Roberts to play like he did for the Lions.
 
There's so many holes in his argument its embarrassing, it's getting worse by the week, this probably sums up the whole article best:
 
Gatland has simply got to move Hook closer to the action where he can become involved again in some of the key decision making.
don't forget now that he writes these comments after 2 bottles of whisky !!! thats good going fair play !!!
ClapLOL


-------------
Go ahead..........Take those banana's


Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 10:09am
Originally posted by rolly rolly wrote:

He's an idiot , i buy the wales on sunday every week . I aint read his column for years .
And you say he's the idiot!


Posted By: SA14
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 10:10am
Pushed in front of me in the past players lounge bar at the Millennium stadium in the NZ game the cheeky get.


Posted By: redeyes
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Step aside from BJ's comments for a second and just consider if you're happy with the current level of creativity in the backs?

 
That's a fair comment, but suggesting Henson should be playing is bonkers!
He's not playing any rugby at the moment, so how the hell can he be selected for wales?


-------------
The stadium may change, but the dream will remain the same!




Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 6:54pm
Originally posted by redeyes redeyes wrote:

Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Step aside from BJ's comments for a second and just consider if you're happy with the current level of creativity in the backs?

 
That's a fair comment, but suggesting Henson should be playing is bonkers!
He's not playing any rugby at the moment, so how the hell can he be selected for wales?
 
I agree, and therefore I can only assume that BJ talking of a hypothetical 'match fit' Henson. Now that we could do with back.


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 8:27pm
Hypothetically if we could get another season out of SQ it would solve a few problems, ain't going to happen though, Henson couldn't get himself on the pitch when all doctors considered him to be fit, now its entirely up to him I really don't see him playing again.
 
Personally I don't see how Hook at 12 is going to help, he hasn't played particularly well there for the Ospreys and the last thing Wales need is a 12 crabbing across the pitch taking up more room and making the right decision 1 in 10 times.
 
I see Wales' problems in the backs as the back 3 (1/2p, Shane and Hook), none of them can hit the line around the 10/12 channel and Hook never hits the outside shoulder of the 13, apart from when Wales can break a game up they offer very little from set pieces or structured play.
 
Wales need an out and out full back (Barry, Dan or Byrne or Morgan when fit) and can only afford one small winger.
 
Getting slammed at the breakdown doesn't help the flow of the backs much either, Wales rarely come out on top when the big teams perform with Martyn at 7, a few glorious failures but his inability to dog it out at the breakdown has been a Welsh problem for a long time, I'm not blaming him entirely as Wales lack ball carriers too but for me its a consistent problem.


Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 8:52pm
Jes wept. Is there a cretin filter here somewhere?


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 9:03pm
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Jes wept. Is there a cretin filter here somewhere?
 
Is that aimed at anyone in particular or just a general observation?
 
Edit: That's a rhetorical question.
 
I assume that Barry John get's paid to give roughly realistic views, I don't think there's many people that would currently see Henson as a realistic option as 12, being as he doesn't play rugby at the moment.
 
Care to comment on the content of the post rather than just fall into your hypothetical filter criteria?


Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Jes wept. Is there a cretin filter here somewhere?
 
Is that aimed at anyone in particular or just a general observation?
 
Edit: That's a rhetorical question.
 
I assume that Barry John get's paid to give roughly realistic views, I don't think there's many people that would currently see Henson as a realistic option as 12, being as he doesn't play rugby at the moment.
 
Care to comment on the content of the post rather than just fall into your hypothetical filter criteria?
Fine, will do, just after you explain how Ickle is one of Wales' problems and how you reason Dan or Stoddart are anywhere near being international class 15's.


Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 30 November 2009 at 10:50pm
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Originally posted by Gate12 Gate12 wrote:

Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Jes wept. Is there a cretin filter here somewhere?
 
Is that aimed at anyone in particular or just a general observation?
 
Edit: That's a rhetorical question.
 
I assume that Barry John get's paid to give roughly realistic views, I don't think there's many people that would currently see Henson as a realistic option as 12, being as he doesn't play rugby at the moment.
 
Care to comment on the content of the post rather than just fall into your hypothetical filter criteria?
Fine, will do, just after you explain how Ickle is one of Wales' problems and how you reason Dan or Stoddart are anywhere near being international class 15's.
 
How come most of your posts seem to be looking for an argument? if you re-read (or even read it once properly) my post then its fairly obvious where I'm coming from with my views, I'm not saying that Shane is any more the problem than Halfpenny or either are a 'problem', I just personally don't think playing both of them is effective or playing a 15 than can't hit the line, if we had a thoroughly dominant pack and wanted to play boring rugby then Hook might work at 15, but Wales need to score tries and they're not.
 
Stoddart and Dan might be far from the finished articles but they're better 15's than Hook in my opinion, as is Baz.
 
I'm just giving a view on where I think Wales are going wrong and the solutions and don't see why you need to be so insulting and patronising in response without actually giving any reasons for disagreeing.


Posted By: Mike
Date Posted: 01 December 2009 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Jes wept. Is there a cretin filter here somewhere?
 
Why? What he's said is pretty much spot on.
 
Wales must be the only country in the world that sees its rugby team hammered and blames it on a lack of creativity in the backs.
 
Martyn has been bullied pretty much everytime he's come up against a physical SH 7. He used to get owned by Easterby everytime he played at Stradey. Wales shouldn't drop him as he's the best option we have, but the observation is fair IMO.
 
No-one suggests dropping Shane; just that playing two C-Beebies on the wing in Shane and Halfpenny, particularly without power at 15, is going to cause problems. Mark Jones will come straight back into the side when fit, because at test-level he's still a better option than LH.


Posted By: McQ
Date Posted: 02 December 2009 at 11:50am

Fine, if you'd go along with dropping Hook totally and playing Stoddart ot FB then bully for you. Agreed it wouldn't improve the forward platform, but then that's not what we're discussing. Would it improve the back play....not fking likely.



Posted By: Gate12
Date Posted: 02 December 2009 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by McQ McQ wrote:

Fine, if you'd go along with dropping Hook totally and playing Stoddart ot FB then bully for you. Agreed it wouldn't improve the forward platform, but then that's not what we're discussing. Would it improve the back play....not fking likely.

 
Already covered why it would improve the back play by having a specialist 15, if you really think that Hook is a better option going forward than Stoddart (or Baz or Dan) then as you say bully for you. The topic is about Barry John's comments in general which are why Wales lost and what they need to do to improve their attack so everything I've said is relevant.


Posted By: Ow!
Date Posted: 02 December 2009 at 8:20pm
barry john never offers considered views over time. he's a knee jerk reaction guy whose columns are extremely predictable. i'd like to see the wales on sunday get some new experts on their panel and preferably people currently involved in the game in some capacity or players who have retired this decade. some of these 70s players are given far too much column inches.

-------------
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'll never understand. A world of knowledge at your fingertips, and you play poker all night.












Posted By: lofty evans
Date Posted: 04 December 2009 at 9:29pm
H is as positive as the posters on here who always take a pop at anything Scarlet, Hook is rubbish, my 20 year old son who plays centre would bury him permanently and bloody good riddence. John's views are more biased than mine,,,

-------------
In 1972, Roy Bergiers scored that try and said "that was for you lofty"

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net