Gavin Henson

[Flamingo]

No, but it is ok to look after yourself and not care what other people say!

 

[Black-Monday]

He also promotes how having a nice steady..... calm, and quiet out of the public eye relationship is good....

To be honest, Jonny Wilkinson is a very good role model. I read his book and since then have made a few changes to my life. Nothing drastic, just cut out all Macdonalds.

It also made me laugh about the comment made about hello and ok magazine.

BM

 

[loratadine]

ok, i can understand where alot of you are coming from, that Gavin from the outside appears arrogant and unproffesional. But ive got to admire Henson's honesty, he certainly doesn beat around the bush and he definitely tells people, straight up how hes feeling. Too many players now adays act all gentlemanly and dont speak what they really think, gavin said what is on his heart, when asked if wales could beat england, henson replied that he fully expected wales to beat england. That may appear big headed, but to win those sort of games, the whole team must be in the mindset that they will win that game. If henson had replied, "ummmmm..... im not really sure, there a great team....and itll be hard......but well give it out..best.....shot." people would be slating him for being unconfidence and not having the right attitue to play rugby. Henson has an oppinion and he sticks by it, granted most people dont agree with him, but in this society of robot created sports personalities, a person who doesnt care what people think of what he says should be encouraged not frowned upon..... After all society has moved on, and having youre own opinion should not be frowned upon. As flamingo has said Gavin Henson as had a massive impact in rugby. Children in wales, and even England are taking rugby up because they admire Henson. He looks good and feels good, and he appeals to the nature of every working class person that they can make someting of themselves. Children who play rugby aspire to be like Gavin.

 

[kaftka]

Originally posted by Flamingo@Apr 13 2006, 09:43 PM
Kaftka, you cant put someone in the wall of shame cause you dont like him! so give me one reason why i cant put, dawson or stringer or dan parks or horgan or even tim stimpson in there i dont like them it wont have nothing to do with there rugby skills like you said it will be down to the fact that i just dont like them.... i wont do that cause that is childish! put this topic in the off topic and then put him in the wall of shame cause no one likes him then i might agree with you, but this is the RUGBY forum and surely you should talk about the rugby side of putting someone in the wall of shame not cause you dont like him.

Fair point. However, in professional rugby there is more than just on-field activities these days.
The Majority seems to think that his off-field performance is very arrogant and annoying, and his media portrayal seems to have a very negative affect on his reputation.

Granted, I do not like his attitude, and it's fair that you don't like other players as well, but the thing is, there have been numerous reasons and examples given throughout this thread as to why he deserves to be hung on the WOS.

You can nominate somebody you don't like, but you MUST give a specific example. You can't just say, "I nominate him because I don't like his attitude". In those cases you must give an example and put it in a great compelling argument.

Loratadine originally nominated England for pretty much the reason that he doesn't like England, I asked him to change it, and now he's written something that may well get them the sticky tape...


As I say, It's all well and good to nominate a player for various reasons, but the thing is, there HAS to be a real reason for it to be considered.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by loratadine@Apr 13 2006, 11:29 AM
and even England are taking rugby up because they admire Henson.

Steady on...

I won't comment on his impact on children in Wales too much, because obviously I don't live there.

I think it would be going over the top to say he is having that sort of impact in England though. I know when I first started playing, Gavin Henson is not someone I would have aspired to be like.

Everyone has different role models, but Henson is not well admired outside Wales, and even then not all the population share the view that he has a positive impact on Welsh rugby.

 

[loratadine]

im not one of thse goons are going to say "henson won us the grand slam" because he didnt, he played a part in it, but certainly didnt win it for us. Henson has had an awful season and hopefullt this is what he needed to give him a bit of a reality check. He really have got to start putting in the effort, and stop going to nightclubs getting tanked up with his lady freind.

 

[Flamingo]

Originally posted by kaftka+Apr 13 2006, 10:55 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Flamingo

@Apr 13 2006, 09:43 PM
Kaftka, you cant put someone in the wall of shame cause you dont like him! so give me one reason why i cant put, dawson or stringer or dan parks or horgan or even tim stimpson in there i dont like them it wont have nothing to do with there rugby skills like you said it will be down to the fact that i just dont like them.... i wont do that cause that is childish! put this topic in the off topic and then put him in the wall of shame cause no one likes him then i might agree with you, but this is the RUGBY forum and surely you should talk about the rugby side of putting someone in the wall of shame not cause you dont like him.

Fair point. However, in professional rugby there is more than just on-field activities these days.
The Majority seems to think that his off-field performance is very arrogant and annoying, and his media portrayal seems to have a very negative affect on his reputation.

Granted, I do not like his attitude, and it's fair that you don't like other players as well, but the thing is, there have been numerous reasons and examples given throughout this thread as to why he deserves to be hung on the WOS.

You can nominate somebody you don't like, but you MUST give a specific example. You can't just say, "I nominate him because I don't like his attitude". In those cases you must give an example and put it in a great compelling argument.

Loratadine originally nominated England for pretty much the reason that he doesn't like England, I asked him to change it, and now he's written something that may well get them the sticky tape...


As I say, It's all well and good to nominate a player for various reasons, but the thing is, there HAS to be a real reason for it to be considered. [/b]

So overall he doesn't deserve a place in the wall of shame. if he does then so does thousands of other 'arrogant' players

 

[kaftka]

Originally posted by Flamingo+Apr 14 2006, 01:14 AM-->

Originally posted by kaftka@Apr 13 2006, 10:55 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Flamingo

@Apr 13 2006, 09:43 PM
Kaftka, you cant put someone in the wall of shame cause you dont like him! so give me one reason why i cant put, dawson or stringer or dan parks or horgan or even tim stimpson in there i dont like them it wont have nothing to do with there rugby skills like you said it will be down to the fact that i just dont like them.... i wont do that cause that is childish! put this topic in the off topic and then put him in the wall of shame cause no one likes him then i might agree with you, but this is the RUGBY forum and surely you should talk about the rugby side of putting someone in the wall of shame not cause you dont like him.

Fair point. However, in professional rugby there is more than just on-field activities these days.
The Majority seems to think that his off-field performance is very arrogant and annoying, and his media portrayal seems to have a very negative affect on his reputation.

Granted, I do not like his attitude, and it's fair that you don't like other players as well, but the thing is, there have been numerous reasons and examples given throughout this thread as to why he deserves to be hung on the WOS.

You can nominate somebody you don't like, but you MUST give a specific example. You can't just say, "I nominate him because I don't like his attitude". In those cases you must give an example and put it in a great compelling argument.

Loratadine originally nominated England for pretty much the reason that he doesn't like England, I asked him to change it, and now he's written something that may well get them the sticky tape...


As I say, It's all well and good to nominate a player for various reasons, but the thing is, there HAS to be a real reason for it to be considered.

So overall he doesn't deserve a place in the wall of shame. if he does then so does thousands of other 'arrogant' players [/b]

You are missing the point entirely.


Overall he does deserve it. That is, overall within what he is being nominated for.

Specifically he is being nominated for being a stuckup arrogant man who thinks he is better than what he really is, and letting the media run/ruin his life.
Specifically the majority finds this as the truth.
There are worse players than him that are arrogant, yes. But this particular nomination isn't to do with his skill as a rugby player (which is average). This particular nomination is to do with his status, and how his orange little self and the media portray him. Most people find his blatant media whoring a disgrace, and that is why he deserves to be on the wall.

Look at the other inductee as an example.
John Mitchell is a good coach. There are much much worse than him. He had a very good success rate leading towards the world cup. However was nominated for disastrous coaching during the world cup. That was what he was specifically being nominated for.

The England thread. They have been among the best in the world for a helluva long time. There are far worse teams around. But they are specifically being nominated for the fact that they couldn't keep their world's best status, and indeed dropped immensely, after the world cup.

That is the point. Specifics.

 

[Boy]

Originally posted by robbinho@Apr 7 2006, 01:31 AM
Self-explanatory really.

Living off one kick over a year ago, getting into the headlines of bored, lazy tabloids by the deplorable acts of describing himself as suicidal after playing like ****, and generally trying to be a footballer.

An abortion of a man.

Is there a prize for a post having illicited more than double the number of replies than original words used (47)?

I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings for Henson perfectly clear in the past, so I don't really need to enter into this 'argument' (by which I mean a distinct minority struggling to justify any sort of opposition).

Oops...

 

[gjohn85]

Originally posted by Boy+Apr 14 2006, 04:58 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-robbinho

@Apr 7 2006, 01:31 AM
Self-explanatory really.

Living off one kick over a year ago, getting into the headlines of bored, lazy tabloids by the deplorable acts of describing himself as suicidal after playing like ****, and generally trying to be a footballer.

An abortion of a man.

Is there a prize for a post having illicited more than double the number of replies than original words used (47)?

I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings for Henson perfectly clear in the past, so I don't really need to enter into this 'argument' (by which I mean a distinct minority struggling to justify any sort of opposition).

Oops... [/b]

Could you please re-enter your post in layman's terms, Boy?

We have another intelligent poster.

 

[loratadine]

some of you should actually bother watching the celtic league before you slate him.

 

[sambãd5]

Originally posted by loratadine@Apr 21 2006, 09:58 PM
some of you should actually bother watching the celtic league before you slate him.

you can say the same thing about lavea.

 

[loratadine]

no i regularly watch super 14, and i can tell you lavea is the worse player the blues have ever had. He would get owned even in the cl.

 

[Boy]

Originally posted by loratadine@Apr 21 2006, 11:01 PM
no i regularly watch super 14, and i can tell you lavea is the worse player the blues have ever had. He would get owned even in the cl.

Ever? From the Blues foundation in 1996 (when you were 8, mind you) Lavea is the worst player they've had?

That's a rather sweeping comment. Not neccessarily wrong, of course, but sweeping none the less.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Boy+Apr 23 2006, 06:52 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-loratadine

@Apr 21 2006, 11:01 PM
no i regularly watch super 14, and i can tell you lavea is the worse player the blues have ever had. He would get owned even in the cl.

Ever? From the Blues foundation in 1996 (when you were 8, mind you) Lavea is the worst player they've had?

That's a rather sweeping comment. Not neccessarily wrong, of course, but sweeping none the less. [/b]

Yes, He Is.

 

[Black-Monday]

Sorry which is Lavea again?

BM

 

[Ripper]

The Girl on the left in the bottom photo.

 

[Black-Monday]

Only girls in both photo's I see, seriously though. Lavea wouldn't look out of place in a women's game. It just looks so feminine.

BM

 

[loratadine]

im perfectly aware how long the blues have been going, but id even go as far to say hes the worse player the great rugby city of auckland have ever seen.

 

[gjohn85]

Why don't someone create a thread for Lavea in the 'Hall of Shame' thread then?