The Gooner's Online Message Board
https://forum.onlinegooner.com/
Interesting that you are the only one that knows what a "cocktail" is... and had to explain it to the rest of us...arseofacrow wrote:DB10 really does protest too much. ...unless he's offered a cock in the mouth. Or a cocktail (2 cocks)
Perryashburtongroves wrote:Too fucking right. A bunch of closet-gays who are too fucking fat and unfit to do anything else other than touch each other up and wheeze for breath every twenty seconds.DB10GOONER wrote:If you honestly think any of those footballers rolling around are really injured you have never played the game. They are cheating, faking injury, trying to get an advantage, it's "professionalism" in the negative context of that word - this does not make them poofs. Similarly towel flickers are not hard men because they don't fake injury in this manner (although the whole cutting and stitching thing is creepy tbh). Most rugby players at all levels (with exception of the tiny minority at the top level) of the game are soft fat slobs.GranadaJoe wrote:Perryashburtongroves wrote:Aren't there a whole host of gay chat lines or websites to discuss this sort of thing?
I get the 'it's only Hoorah Henry types that follow rugby' pisstake, but I've never understood why certain people label rugby 'gay'.
It's modern football players, with their designer hairstyles, and rolling around on the ground crying that are embarassingly girly.
Rugby players get their heads trampled on by 18 stone blokes wearing inch-long metal studs in their boots and get up and get on with the game.
It's also a myth that towel flickers play through injuries. Absolute bollocks. By the slow nature of the game very few rugby gimps get broken legs or ACL injuries. The only real risk of a serious injury in towel flicking is a fat 20 stone bastard falling on your neck or spine.
What makes towel flickers gay as Xmas is their playing a game that involves hugging other fat sweaty blokes and sticking their heads in between other fat sweaty blokes' arses. Add to that the whole latent closet gay ethos that surrounds the game (ever heard of the soggy biscuit game?) and yes rugby is gay as fuck. Gay as fuck.
But hey, live and let live.
DB10GOONER wrote:Interesting that you are the only one that knows what a "cocktail" is... and had to explain it to the rest of us...arseofacrow wrote:DB10 really does protest too much. ...unless he's offered a cock in the mouth. Or a cocktail (2 cocks)
arseofacrow wrote:DB10GOONER wrote:Interesting that you are the only one that knows what a "cocktail" is... and had to explain it to the rest of us...arseofacrow wrote:DB10 really does protest too much. ...unless he's offered a cock in the mouth. Or a cocktail (2 cocks)
Seriously, can't make out a word you're saying and why have you got an umbrella sticking out of your mouth?
England were superb in that game and thoroughly deserved the win.northbank123 wrote:Superb effort from Ireland.
England got very lucky with the disallowed Foley try and then scoring after it changed the game - that said they capitalised superbly and just strangled Australia out of the game for 50 minutes. Inexplicable arrogance from Australia to back themselves to run it from their own line in the last two minutes.
Wales put in a great shift but fitness is so telling in rugby and I never had much hope of them holding out with less than a try cushion going into the last 20.
It's a Dublin thing apparently. When they run out of guns and knives...DB10GOONER wrote:arseofacrow wrote:DB10GOONER wrote:Interesting that you are the only one that knows what a "cocktail" is... and had to explain it to the rest of us...arseofacrow wrote:DB10 really does protest too much. ...unless he's offered a cock in the mouth. Or a cocktail (2 cocks)
Seriously, can't make out a word you're saying and why have you got an umbrella sticking out of your mouth?
Is "umbrella" another one of your gay euphemisms? I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one as well.
arseofacrow wrote:It's a Dublin thing apparently. When they run out of guns and knives...DB10GOONER wrote:arseofacrow wrote:DB10GOONER wrote:Interesting that you are the only one that knows what a "cocktail" is... and had to explain it to the rest of us...arseofacrow wrote:DB10 really does protest too much. ...unless he's offered a cock in the mouth. Or a cocktail (2 cocks)
Seriously, can't make out a word you're saying and why have you got an umbrella sticking out of your mouth?
Is "umbrella" another one of your gay euphemisms? I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one as well.
Only saw bits and bobs as was getting ready for cricket as it is away and tbh it's not very warm here todaynorthbank123 wrote:Thought Australia were hugely short on creativity in the backs. Phipps passed awfully and their two centres had zero creativity - watching their 12 just try and batter through the opposition every time without even running a decent line was like watching Wales chuck it to Roberts every phase.
England have picked up real nous and over both games have got away with murder with holding around the ruck, intentional blocking/offside and cynical fouling and slowing the ball down in the danger area. Joubert was particularly terrible today. But that's what you need to do to win series in the SH and NZ are the masters. England deserved the series win. 14 handling errors from Australia was laughable.
Wales did their usual flirt with a challenge and then buckled - they really have got confidence problems because as usual they buckled and then let NZ run over 4 tries in 20 minutes. On the plus side Roberts was more marginalised and Davies and Williams flourished as a result, and Biggar showed signs that he can be a decent playmaker given the chance.
Watching NZ v Wales the biggest difference is not in playing ability but in ability to execute skills under pressure. At 10-10 Warburton intercepted a pass and broke away before a simple pass to Faletau went to ground. Wales then lost their own line-out on halfway and missed tackles to let NZ score about 20 seconds later. If NZ forwards had that breakaway chance they would have scored because thei entire squad can handle, pass and make the right decision under pressure for 80 minutes.
arseofacrow wrote:You've got to wonder about the mentality of people who'd colonise countries and then inflict cricket and rugby on them.
Hang on, just seen last Thursday's Vote. It all makes sense now.
