• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Anglo Cup Returns

H

harrison2468

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I am merely saying, if he is as good as you say he is, he would have come to my attention or the attention of the Scottish selectors.[/b]

Maybe, but I did say that players playing in Scotland aren't well tracked, except for ones known after leaving as a capped player. Also, the fact he was playing ND1 rugby last year doesn't help. However, just because he hasn't been called up doesn't mean he isn't good enough. You should know that, as should I. Look at our national squads - England and Ireland haven't been calling up the best talent all the time. I for instance, would not of had a clue who your new 8 is before this season. Me calling him inferior to Martin Corry because I have never heard of him would be wrong. In fact, he is a very good player.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I haven't read the book, hence I don't make claims about my content. Your 'I've heard from people' point is like the infamous Fox News line "Some people say..." which is when they start to influence people's opinions. I've heard it was blown out of proportion but I guess neither of us can really say as we haven't read the book.[/b]

Ok, agreed.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
My point about Wales surviving is because you were acting the Greek Oracle at Delphi and saying something along the lines of "he will make Wales fall apart". they haven't fallen apart, Henson has been in contact with them and clarified what he was saying. If it was as disatrous as you say its effect would have been clear to see.[/b]

I can't argue it any further, we will just have to wait and see.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
You clearly don't understand my economics arguement, based on economics as a social science. If you understood economics you would have understood my inferior goods versus normal goods and not challenged it. It is a fundemental pillar of economics. This arguement isn't based on how good Cox actually is, rather how good he is percieved to be relative to BOD or Henson.[/b]

I understand it. Inferior goods versus normal goods always, or mostly, have a higher price attached to them (in terms of rugby, contract). However, although this is fact, the quality of the goods in comparision can't be set in stone. This is becasue of opinion, since people have different opinions on what makes a good apple pie (or inside centre). Therefore, althoug most normal goods will be higher in quality than inferior in most people views, it is not clear-cut, and there are some exceptions where inferior goods are of a higher quality in the majority of minds, and also a lower price, although not in this case. So although Cox is a Tesco value good, he is only definitely cheaper than a Henson or BOD, and not definitley in quality.

It has been a good arguement with you el_tk, but I think it is coming to an end soon.
 
E

el_tk

Guest
Originally posted by harrison2468@Dec 6 2005, 10:38 PM
Maybe, but I did say that players playing in Scotland aren't well tracked, except for ones known after leaving as a capped player.  Also, the fact he was playing ND1 rugby last year doesn't help.  However, just because he hasn't been called up doesn't mean he isn't good enough.  You should know that, as should I.  Look at our national squads - England and Ireland haven't been calling up the best talent all the time.  I for instance, would not of had a clue who your new 8 is before this season.  Me calling him inferior to Martin Corry because I have never heard of him would be wrong.  In fact, he is a very good player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
You clearly don't understand my economics arguement, based on economics as a social science. If you understood economics you would have understood my inferior goods versus normal goods and not challenged it. It is a fundemental pillar of economics. This arguement isn't based on how good Cox actually is, rather how good he is percieved to be relative to BOD or Henson.

I understand it. Inferior goods versus normal goods always, or mostly, have a higher price attached to them (in terms of rugby, contract). However, although this is fact, the quality of the goods in comparision can't be set in stone. This is becasue of opinion, since people have different opinions on what makes a good apple pie (or inside centre). Therefore, althoug most normal goods will be higher in quality than inferior in most people views, it is not clear-cut, and there are some exceptions where inferior goods are of a higher quality in the majority of minds, and also a lower price, although not in this case. So although Cox is a Tesco value good, he is only definitely cheaper than a Henson or BOD, and not definitley in quality.

It has been a good arguement with you el_tk, but I think it is coming to an end soon. [/b][/quote]
I would be very suprised if the Scottish management were not aware of Cox, purely because he is qualified and plays in the GP. Most international teams monitor huge amounts of players before picking a select few. They picked Hinshelwood when he was playing ND1, and Andy Craig.

When is an inferior good of higher quality? Seriously.

Although I am talking on a Macroeconomical (if that's a word) scale. You can't legislate for each individual's actions but you can predict with a large degree of accuracy how the majority will re-act (i.e. who they will choose out of Cox and BOD)
 
H

harrison2468

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
When is an inferior good of higher quality? Seriously.

Although I am talking on a Macroeconomical (if that's a word) scale. You can't legislate for each individual's actions but you can predict with a large degree of accuracy how the majority will re-act (i.e. who they will choose out of Cox and BOD)[/b]

Well,m it depends on how you think of quality. I had a piece of Sainsbury's 22p chocolate bar today, and found it tasted better than a dearer piece of chocolate like Dairy Milk. This was because it tasted more milkly...

But because of this, I found it was a better quality than the Dairy Milk, although this was in my opinion. For very one with my opinion on this subject, I am sure there is around of hunded with a different view. Despite this, I still see the inferior good as a higher quality.

Yes, most will chose BOD. But some people prefer a more milky bar of chocolate, while some prefer a bigger bosher for a centre. This is where a consumer, i.e. a club, may choose Tindall over BOD, finance aside. Despite the difference in price, the club may consider Tindall higher quality than BOD because of the way he fits in with their game plan.
 
E

el_tk

Guest
Originally posted by harrison2468@Dec 6 2005, 10:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
When is an inferior good of higher quality? Seriously.

Although I am talking on a Macroeconomical (if that's a word) scale. You can't legislate for each individual's actions but you can predict with a large degree of accuracy how the majority will re-act (i.e. who they will choose out of Cox and BOD)

Well,m it depends on how you think of quality. I had a piece of Sainsbury's 22p chocolate bar today, and found it tasted better than a dearer piece of chocolate like Dairy Milk. This was because it tasted more milkly...

But because of this, I found it was a better quality than the Dairy Milk, although this was in my opinion. For very one with my opinion on this subject, I am sure there is around of hunded with a different view. Despite this, I still see the inferior good as a higher quality.

Yes, most will chose BOD. But some people prefer a more milky bar of chocolate, while some prefer a bigger bosher for a centre. This is where a consumer, i.e. a club, may choose Tindall over BOD, finance aside. Despite the difference in price, the club may consider Tindall higher quality than BOD because of the way he fits in with their game plan. [/b][/quote]
Hmm, don't think I'll be writing that in my Leaving Cert.

Anyone call it a day with the arguement? I don't see any point in continuing.
 
S

Saint N Sinner

Guest
Yesh.

Fair points all over the place and was an interesting debate but, if it wen't any further I think Jerry Springer might of had to get involved...
 
H

harrison2468

Guest
Originally posted by el_tk+Dec 6 2005, 09:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (el_tk @ Dec 6 2005, 09:58 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-harrison2468
@Dec 6 2005, 10:53 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
When is an inferior good of higher quality? Seriously.

Although I am talking on a Macroeconomical (if that's a word) scale. You can't legislate for each individual's actions but you can predict with a large degree of accuracy how the majority will re-act (i.e. who they will choose out of Cox and BOD)

Well,m it depends on how you think of quality. I had a piece of Sainsbury's 22p chocolate bar today, and found it tasted better than a dearer piece of chocolate like Dairy Milk. This was because it tasted more milkly...

But because of this, I found it was a better quality than the Dairy Milk, although this was in my opinion. For very one with my opinion on this subject, I am sure there is around of hunded with a different view. Despite this, I still see the inferior good as a higher quality.

Yes, most will chose BOD. But some people prefer a more milky bar of chocolate, while some prefer a bigger bosher for a centre. This is where a consumer, i.e. a club, may choose Tindall over BOD, finance aside. Despite the difference in price, the club may consider Tindall higher quality than BOD because of the way he fits in with their game plan. [/b]
Hmm, don't think I'll be writing that in my Leaving Cert.

Anyone call it a day with the arguement? I don't see any point in continuing. [/b][/quote]
Do you do economics then?


Yeah, it was a good arguement while it lasted though, the best I have had on here.

And it all started because you ruined my attempt of fishing...
 
E

el_tk

Guest
Originally posted by harrison2468@Dec 6 2005, 11:06 PM
Do you do economics then?


Yeah, it was a good arguement while it lasted though, the best I have had on here.

And it all started because you ruined my attempt of fishing...
Yeah, I started this year. Out of 80 people in my year over 60 are doing it.

Why did we even start, I can't really remember.
 
H

harrison2468

Guest
Originally posted by el_tk+Dec 6 2005, 10:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (el_tk @ Dec 6 2005, 10:10 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-harrison2468
@Dec 6 2005, 11:06 PM

Do you do economics then?


Yeah, it was a good arguement while it lasted though, the best I have had on here.

And it all started because you ruined my attempt of fishing...
Yeah, I started this year. Out of 80 people in my year over 60 are doing it.

Why did we even start, I can't really remember. [/b]
Look all the way back at page 1, and all will be revealed...
 

Primary

The Rugby Forum Assistant
Here are some related products that The Rugby Forum members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to The Rugby Forum’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to The Rugby Forum discussions about these products.

 
 
Top