Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

The Kiwis should be favorites for the Four Nations


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#61 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:29 AM

QUOTE (AndyCapp @ Sep 8 2010, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Problem is Dave the backs only scored 1 of those 3 tries and it was the same in the first encounter.
6 tries in 2 games with 4 tries from the forwards and 2 from the backs.
It wont be enough points unless there is a better game plan and performance.

Yes, it was sort of the point I was making tbh, admittedly clumsily!

We weren't ruthless enough in attack with the backs, and I think some of that was down to tactics, which is somewhat surprising considering Smith now coaches a very expansive style at Warrington, however maybe he felt that he didn't want to over-expose the very new and young back-line last year, whereas maybe they are more ready to play that style this year.

#62 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:47 AM

QUOTE (petero @ Sep 7 2010, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The one you refer to Dave is a poor post, you can be pardoned for your agreement if as you say you" have seen very little of the NRL this term".

Should anyone be in any doubt as to when our forwards were last beaten: how about the 4 Nations final last year?

OK it took 60+ minutes, plus the injury to Shenton, to see that come about.
Yet in all honesty isn't the consensus generally that the backs cannot operate in the ascendency without the domination that the forwards provide, in ANY R/L game ?
I am sorry to say it but we are delusional in repeating the statement that our forwards have rarely been beaten, if that were accurate in itself we would have shared the honours of test match meetings with the Aussies over the past 40 or so years.
We have not done so and only occasionaly have we achieved that distinction and won against them.

I do not mean to denigrate our players but I do intend to make the point that statements of this nature are simply not factual and do not, nor can they, stand up to scrutiny.

It is not my intention to put our lads down I do hope we go and win the comp, but if anyone is in the frame of mind that we have only the Oz backs to master then they are deluding themselves, yet again.
The forwards they WILL field are more than capable of holding their own and, the Kiwi's are also a threat well above what is being imagined by people on here.


let me just quote my "poor post"

QUOTE
my opinion and mine only is that its a proper 3 way this time around..

Australia are always good but perhaps not as strong with the unjuries they have this time around
New Zealand look good but depends if they turn up or not..

England.. when was the last time our pack got dominated? yes we are without Peacock but that is one player, we still have graham and morely leading the line with then a couple of inform (one would hope) players coming in too if its LMS then by god he has to prove himself as he will next year and this may make a big difference, he looks good at quins, how good could he be with the right support around him etc. we will not be dominated IMO
the 3/4 line got us to the final last time around and arguably will be stronger this year becuase they are a year older, we have otpions at fullback, Atkins has looked good this year, bridge too and shenton so there is competition in the centres etc...
Personally england could balls this up like they did last time in aus, mcnamara could ###### it up BUT to right them off now becuase we have seen a good but not sh*t scarey nz team is just daft (but i'm not shocked).. i[ve watched a lot of the NRL this year, and the games are intense but none of theplayers in the NZ team bar Isaac Luke and Benji make me tremble.


if you notice i said "dominated" not beaten.. that is very different.. we have not been dominated by another team.. you can get beaten without being trampled upon.. plus we were beaten for 20 minutes not for the whole game.. for the other 60 we were are least on a par in the pack, we were not dominated.

bar that which is open to debate which other bits of it are poor??

in games where we have been equal with the other forwards our problem has always laid in the backs as i point out in other posts.. in the one you believe is a "poor post" i have pointed out how this is changing and how i can see that we are getting stronger in the positions.

The aussies' backs are so dominant (and i use that term again deliberatly) that they destroy us when their forwards get on the front foot.. even if only for 1/4 of the game

when our forwards are on the front foot we cannot do this and we struggle to score even with a dominant pack or just a good pack.

our forwards not being dominated means that we are on an even keel, the game ebs and flows but to be winningt he arm wrestle for 60 minutes you should win the game, the reason we dont is the backs not completling the sets of 6 in the same fashion as the forwards start it.

The point being we have the forwards and have done for a while, we are now starting to get the backs.

#63 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 10:57 AM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 8 2010, 09:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
let me just quote my "poor post"



if you notice i said "dominated" not beaten.. that is very different.. we have not been dominated by another team.. you can get beaten without being trampled upon.. plus we were beaten for 20 minutes not for the whole game.. for the other 60 we were are least on a par in the pack, we were not dominated.

bar that which is open to debate which other bits of it are poor??

in games where we have been equal with the other forwards our problem has always laid in the backs as i point out in other posts.. in the one you believe is a "poor post" i have pointed out how this is changing and how i can see that we are getting stronger in the positions.

The aussies' backs are so dominant (and i use that term again deliberatly)
that they destroy us when their forwards get on the front foot.. even if only for 1/4 of the game

when our forwards are on the front foot we cannot do this and we struggle to score even with a dominant pack or just a good pack.

our forwards not being dominated means that we are on an even keel, the game ebs and flows but to be winningt he arm wrestle for 60 minutes you should win the game, the reason we dont is the backs not completling the sets of 6 in the same fashion as the forwards start it.

The point being we have the forwards and have done for a while, we are now starting to get the backs.


OK I take your point on the question of dominance V beaten as you have explained your definition well, but!

I do believe that you are going around the facts in order to suit your own argument.

As the game of Rugby League is played for 80 minutes, the fact that one pack loses it's equability with the other pack consistently (almost continuously since 1982) results in a loss. Sometimes that loss can be heavy and seemingly lop-sided a prime example being the 4Nations final last year.

I do not argue with the explanation of how, our often inferior backs fare, when as you say " our forwards are on the front foot ", but I will contest the fact that you seem to be of the opinion that often it is our pack that has the upper hand and that their exhaustion is so often the cause of our downfall, because the backs are not good enough to exploit this early superiority that we almost certainly attain, in most games V the Aussies?

That is not the case always and some pretty gruesome results only too clearly display that fact.

I have had this discussion so often and over so many years and to be honest I cannot totally agree with the argument that G/Bs or now Englands pack is so often as good as the oppositions and as some alway's claim, often better!

That they often compete for much of a game is not in question but still, the fact that eventually over the 80 minutes they prove not good enough, points to the fact that over a full match time we lose as a team and also in the pack, otherwise we would share the honours of wins far more equally than past records show.

In last seasons final it was the departure of one of our 'inferior' backs from the field that proved the catlyst for the eventual defeat: Shenton! Who had manfully stopped all thrown his way and more, in defence.
Some seasons ago when Morley was sent off after 12! Seconds, we only lost in the final few minutes when our 'poor' backs had to defend for 79 minutes without one of our much vaunted pack .
I argue that they must have done equally as well as those in pack to have played that game to such a conclusion?

I want our team to win but that does not alter the fact that being realistic about the past, present and future performances is to be seen as denigrating our players whether in the pack or the backs, we field a team not a pack and the latter are as culpable when we are defeated as the former, if we had dominance then we would come out with more wins, that is just my own opinion.


#64 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 11:13 AM

The theory that Shenton held the defense together is not really accurate.
All of the attack went down the other side in the first half, not because Shenton was on the right.

The game developed and the Australians moved down the other side after Shenton went off either because thats how the plays developed or due to the reshuffle of the England team to cover that Centre spot made the Aussies take advantage of the shake up.

The fact Englands game plan had no utility back or cover for an injured back from the bench is the sort of mistake Australia will notice and take full advantage of if the opportunity arises.

Reshuffling players or playing people out of position may work at Club level but not against the Kangaroos.




#65 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 12:28 PM

QUOTE (petero @ Sep 8 2010, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK I take your point on the question of dominance V beaten as you have explained your definition well, but!

I do believe that you are going around the facts in order to suit your own argument.

to be fair if we didnt do that we would all have the same opinion and it would be very boring.. i could accuse you of exactly the same.
QUOTE
As the game of Rugby League is played for 80 minutes, the fact that one pack loses it's equability with the other pack consistently (almost continuously since 1982) results in a loss. Sometimes that loss can be heavy and seemingly lop-sided a prime example being the 4Nations final last year.

I do not argue with the explanation of how, our often inferior backs fare, when as you say " our forwards are on the front foot ", but I will contest the fact that you seem to be of the opinion that often it is our pack that has the upper hand and that their exhaustion is so often the cause of our downfall, because the backs are not good enough to exploit this early superiority that we almost certainly attain, in most games V the Aussies?

That is not the case always and some pretty gruesome results only too clearly display that fact.

I have had this discussion so often and over so many years and to be honest I cannot totally agree with the argument that G/Bs or now Englands pack is so often as good as the oppositions and as some alway's claim, often better!

That they often compete for much of a game is not in question but still, the fact that eventually over the 80 minutes they prove not good enough, points to the fact that over a full match time we lose as a team and also in the pack, otherwise we would share the honours of wins far more equally than past records show.

In last seasons final it was the departure of one of our 'inferior' backs from the field that proved the catlyst for the eventual defeat: Shenton! Who had manfully stopped all thrown his way and more, in defence.
Some seasons ago when Morley was sent off after 12! Seconds, we only lost in the final few minutes when our 'poor' backs had to defend for 79 minutes without one of our much vaunted pack .
I argue that they must have done equally as well as those in pack to have played that game to such a conclusion?

I want our team to win but that does not alter the fact that being realistic about the past, present and future performances is to be seen as denigrating our players whether in the pack or the backs, we field a team not a pack and the latter are as culpable when we are defeated as the former, if we had dominance then we would come out with more wins, that is just my own opinion.


I agree with some of that and some not so much..

you pick a couple f examples to prove your point yet thats a couple in a lot of matches.. IMO we dont win matches becuase we cant score the points.. thats not down to not having parity in the forwards but the forwards have to get you to positions to allow the play makers to get you into scoring positions.. ie.. the pack can dominate but our kciking game is sh*t at which point the pack can dominate within our 40 meters but becuase we kick down billy slaters throat he gets them back to starting a set onthe halfway line.. they arent so strong in the pack but still make 20-30 meters meaning their kick with their superior wingers etc is a much better attacking kick forcing us to drop out, or to concede, our pack pick it up on our line ad make 40-50 meters and agin our kick is shocking and so we repeat.. this has happened for the last 5 years or so when our kciking game has been terrible..

our centres dont make the breaks to get the pack into positions where the dominance turns into points..

dominance of forwards is not the same as field position etc.

Our backs and half backs especially need to be able to control the rest ofthe game and at last it looks like we have half backs who can do this.

our backs need to make breaks, need to be bossed around the pitch etc and this is starting to happen.

enlgand losing their dominance for the last 20 conisistently which is fair does not mean they havent dominated.. as a pack the dominance in your own half the driving without much help etc wears you down more so than in a bouyant aussie side. with the help of scores on the back of good drives and breaks from the backs, and good kicking the forwards tend to perform better towards the end/keep on going longer.

As far as i remember most aussie and kiwi breaks come in the backs (or hookers but we do that too) ver few are down the middle forward bashes..

our defence and attack in the backs has been a major issue over the past.. i dont believe our forwards have been (i may well be proved wrong this time out) but our backs have been the big issue

#66 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE (East Coast Tiger @ Sep 6 2010, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Looks likes Matai will be out for at least some of the tournament after his effort yesterday.



Steve Matai has been suspended for seven games.

http://www.dailytele...r-1225915277981

There goes his Four Nations!

Lucky Shenton.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 09 September 2010 - 12:53 AM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#67 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 08:05 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Sep 9 2010, 12:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Steve Matai has been suspended for seven games.

http://www.dailytele...r-1225915277981

There goes his Four Nations!

Lucky Shenton.

Is that another one of your "exclusives" and insider knwoledge even though Lee posted that on this thread on the 7th at 2.48pm?? rolleyes.gif

Edited by RP London, 09 September 2010 - 08:05 AM.


#68 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 21,892 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Sep 9 2010, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Steve Matai has been suspended for seven games.


So who takes his place - Junior Sa'u? A very different physical specimen to Matai.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#69 scotthouston2008

scotthouston2008
  • Coach
  • 563 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 11:22 AM

Didn't mannering play there in the world cup? He could fill in.
They have a strong pack even with moving him out.

#70 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE (AndyCapp @ Sep 8 2010, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The theory that Shenton held the defense together is not really accurate.
All of the attack went down the other side in the first half, not because Shenton was on the right.

The game developed and the Australians moved down the other side after Shenton went off either because thats how the plays developed or due to the reshuffle of the England team to cover that Centre spot made the Aussies take advantage of the shake up.

The fact Englands game plan had no utility back or cover for an injured back from the bench is the sort of mistake Australia will notice and take full advantage of if the opportunity arises.

Reshuffling players or playing people out of position may work at Club level but not against the Kangaroos.


Thats unarguably well put and possibly quite accurate, but you are also omitting the covering tackle that Senton made on Ingles which would have put the game out of reach before H/T probably.

But I also think you are being unfair in criticising Shenton as unquestionably he did shore up that other side which was very clearly emphasised when he left the field. That the Aussies exploited that side of the field so dramatically following his departure, surely also adds praise to his contribution when playing.

I am not an ardent supporter of Shenton but I really did appreciate his defensive qualities in that game.

#71 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 02:56 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 8 2010, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
to be fair if we didnt do that we would all have the same opinion and it would be very boring.. i could accuse you of exactly the same.


I agree with some of that and some not so much..

you pick a couple f examples to prove your point yet thats a couple in a lot of matches.. IMO we dont win matches becuase we cant score the points.. thats not down to not having parity in the forwards but the forwards have to get you to positions to allow the play makers to get you into scoring positions.. ie.. the pack can dominate but our kciking game is sh*t at which point the pack can dominate within our 40 meters but becuase we kick down billy slaters throat he gets them back to starting a set onthe halfway line.. they arent so strong in the pack but still make 20-30 meters meaning their kick with their superior wingers etc is a much better attacking kick forcing us to drop out, or to concede, our pack pick it up on our line ad make 40-50 meters and agin our kick is shocking and so we repeat.. this has happened for the last 5 years or so when our kciking game has been terrible..

our centres dont make the breaks to get the pack into positions where the dominance turns into points..

dominance of forwards is not the same as field position etc.

Our backs and half backs especially need to be able to control the rest ofthe game and at last it looks like we have half backs who can do this.

our backs need to make breaks, need to be bossed around the pitch etc and this is starting to happen.

enlgand losing their dominance for the last 20 conisistently which is fair does not mean they havent dominated.. as a pack the dominance in your own half the driving without much help etc wears you down more so than in a bouyant aussie side. with the help of scores on the back of good drives and breaks from the backs, and good kicking the forwards tend to perform better towards the end/keep on going longer.

As far as i remember most aussie and kiwi breaks come in the backs (or hookers but we do that too) ver few are down the middle forward bashes..

our defence and attack in the backs has been a major issue over the past.. i dont believe our forwards have been (i may well be proved wrong this time out) but our backs have been the big issue


OK thats acceptable to a great degree.

I won't argue that the defence in the middle of the field is often ( not by any means always) strong but that is not being dominating, our pack does face them up but we do not attain superiority that often, in either attack or defence and that is the contention that I have on this subject.

For sheer endeavour I doubt many of the forwards we have chosen over many years, have let themselves down in that department, but competing and proving better than your opposition are two vastly differing achievements and unfortunately I see that we have more often done the former than the latter.

I hope and pray you prove right next month down under and our pack wipes them out, plus our halves win the battle also, which should lead to us winning, but having seen all or most of the Oz games this season I think it's going to be a tall order.
PS; will Eastmond be going? I do not think that Myler will be capable of the effect you quote and we could be in some trouble with that situation.


#72 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 02:59 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 8 2010, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
to be fair if we didnt do that we would all have the same opinion and it would be very boring.. i could accuse you of exactly the same.


I agree with some of that and some not so much..

you pick a couple f examples to prove your point yet thats a couple in a lot of matches.. IMO we dont win matches becuase we cant score the points.. thats not down to not having parity in the forwards but the forwards have to get you to positions to allow the play makers to get you into scoring positions.. ie.. the pack can dominate but our kciking game is sh*t at which point the pack can dominate within our 40 meters but becuase we kick down billy slaters throat he gets them back to starting a set onthe halfway line.. they arent so strong in the pack but still make 20-30 meters meaning their kick with their superior wingers etc is a much better attacking kick forcing us to drop out, or to concede, our pack pick it up on our line ad make 40-50 meters and agin our kick is shocking and so we repeat.. this has happened for the last 5 years or so when our kciking game has been terrible..

our centres dont make the breaks to get the pack into positions where the dominance turns into points..

dominance of forwards is not the same as field position etc.

Our backs and half backs especially need to be able to control the rest ofthe game and at last it looks like we have half backs who can do this.

our backs need to make breaks, need to be bossed around the pitch etc and this is starting to happen.

enlgand losing their dominance for the last 20 conisistently which is fair does not mean they havent dominated.. as a pack the dominance in your own half the driving without much help etc wears you down more so than in a bouyant aussie side. with the help of scores on the back of good drives and breaks from the backs, and good kicking the forwards tend to perform better towards the end/keep on going longer.

As far as i remember most aussie and kiwi breaks come in the backs (or hookers but we do that too) ver few are down the middle forward bashes..

our defence and attack in the backs has been a major issue over the past.. i dont believe our forwards have been (i may well be proved wrong this time out) but our backs have been the big issue


OK thats acceptable to a great degree.

I won't argue that the defence in the middle of the field is often ( not by any means always) strong but that is not being dominating, our pack does face them up but we do not attain superiority that often, in either attack or defence and that is the contention that I have on this subject.

For sheer endeavour I doubt many of the forwards we have chosen over many years, have let themselves down in that department, but competing and proving better than your opposition are two vastly differing achievements and unfortunately I see that we have more often done the former than the latter.

I hope and pray you prove right next month down under and our pack wipes them out, plus our halves win the battle also, which should lead to us winning, but having seen all or most of the Oz games this season I think it's going to be a tall order.
PS; will Eastmond be going? I do not think that Myler will be capable of the effect you quote and we could be in some trouble with that situation.


#73 Lee

Lee
  • Coach
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 9 2010, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is that another one of your "exclusives" and insider knwoledge even though Lee posted that on this thread on the 7th at 2.48pm?? rolleyes.gif


Hes always 2 days behind with his "exclusives"

Mine was 2nd hand of Sporting Life i think laugh.gif



A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.

#74 scotthouston2008

scotthouston2008
  • Coach
  • 563 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE (Lee @ Sep 9 2010, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hes always 2 days behind with his "exclusives"

Mine was 2nd hand of Sporting Life i think laugh.gif


anyone heard that vainikolo is off to glucester rugby union???

#75 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 21,892 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (scotthouston2008 @ Sep 9 2010, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
anyone heard that vainikolo is off to glucester rugby union???


Never mind that - Wally Lewis is coming!

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#76 Bitofaboogie

Bitofaboogie
  • Coach
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 03:22 PM

The 4 Nations is going to turn out to be a major embarassment for English Rugby League.

The standard in Superleague drops year-on-year and the team we send will be shorn of some of our better players by the time we get down there. Furthermore the coach is a complete goon, in my opinion and the only English RL fans pleased to see him in the job will be those that also support Bradford Bulls.

I am predicting that we will be beaten by all the other teams, PNG included.

PNG almost beat us in the last World Cup and I feel that the time for them to overtake us internationally is very close indeed.

Prepare yourselves for massive disappointment.

sad.gif

#77 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 09 September 2010 - 09:56 PM

QUOTE (Bitofaboogie @ Sep 9 2010, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The 4 Nations is going to turn out to be a major embarassment for English Rugby League.

The standard in Superleague drops year-on-year and the team we send will be shorn of some of our better players by the time we get down there. Furthermore the coach is a complete goon, in my opinion and the only English RL fans pleased to see him in the job will be those that also support Bradford Bulls.

I am predicting that we will be beaten by all the other teams, PNG included.

PNG almost beat us in the last World Cup and I feel that the time for them to overtake us internationally is very close indeed.

Prepare yourselves for massive disappointment.

sad.gif


With Inglis definitely out, Thurston probably out, and Lockyer a bit suspect, it is hard to look at Australia as red hot favourites. To be sure Jamie Lyon and Michael Jennings will be great replacements for injured Inglis and Hodges, and departing Folau. Scott Prince is a great talent and able replacement for Thurston. But the missing players had the X factor. If I was a big betting man, I would put money on New Zealand. They have a lot more passion than the stylish Australians.

But I agree that the English propects are severley hindered by the choice of current coach McNamara. Bobby Goulding would have been much better, but he is already taken. biggrin.gif

Edited by ParisSurtout, 09 September 2010 - 10:06 PM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#78 ParisSurtout

ParisSurtout
  • Coach
  • 3,956 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:02 PM

QUOTE (bendyas @ Sep 2 2010, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hohaia is ok up the middle on the back of a decent pack. He's ok.

Kenny Dowell isn't a top centre, whether you say he is or not. He just isn't.

Benji is brilliant (at times) for Wests where his unpredictability is a massive part of the game plan. In a new team which needs structure, his effectiveness is significantly less.

Matulino plays for NZ doesn't he? Not Brisbane.

I suggest you watch some more, learn some more, watch some more, learn some more then get back to me.



QUOTE (jim_57 @ Sep 3 2010, 07:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rubbish! SKD is slightly better than average, Shenton is easily as good, he is also a proven performer in Internationals from the 4N last year. Wouldn't even get in most team? that's laughable Brisbane (Hodges & Inglis), Dragons (Gasnier, Cooper, Scott) and Manly (Matai, Lyon) are the only ones he wouldn't get in the team but then niehter would alot of good players, nor would they want to sign another centre.



As of yesterday Shaun Kenny-Dowell was NRL's equal top try scorer (along with Newcastle winger Akuile Uate)
At the end of regular season he was equal second along with winger Morris and centre Folau.

He was also equal third best player in terms of line breaks (behind wingers Uate and Morris).

http://www.nrl.com/n...82/default.aspx

Not a top centre, eh? Slightly above average eh?

I suggest you all watch some more, learn some more, watch some more, learn some more then get back to me.

Edited by ParisSurtout, 11 September 2010 - 11:12 PM.

Le rugby a treize, c'est moi!

_____



______________________________________________________

#79 Hannibal

Hannibal
  • Coach
  • 11,790 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 11:54 PM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Sep 12 2010, 12:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As of yesterday Shaun Kenny-Dowell was NRL's equal top try scorer (along with Newcastle winger Akuile Uate)
At the end of regular season he was equal second along with winger Morris and centre Folau.

He was also equal third best player in terms of line breaks (behind wingers Uate and Morris).

http://www.nrl.com/n...82/default.aspx

Not a top centre, eh? Slightly above average eh?

I suggest you all watch some more, learn some more, watch some more, learn some more then get back to me.

What is wrong with you?

Wrong forum.

Go away.

#80 HaroldShand

HaroldShand
  • Coach
  • 2,553 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (ParisSurtout @ Sep 9 2010, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
With Inglis definitely out, Thurston probably out, and Lockyer a bit suspect, it is hard to look at Australia as red hot favourites. To be sure Jamie Lyon and Michael Jennings will be great replacements for injured Inglis and Hodges, and departing Folau. Scott Prince is a great talent and able replacement for Thurston. But the missing players had the X factor. If I was a big betting man, I would put money on New Zealand. They have a lot more passion than the stylish Australians.

But I agree that the English propects are severley hindered by the choice of current coach McNamara. Bobby Goulding would have been much better, but he is already taken. biggrin.gif


I agree. We'd have been much better with Bobby Goulding, who had a half decent spell as coach of the world-class Rochdale Hornets, and went on to guide France to such success in the 2008 World Cup.
If this suggestion was tongue in cheek, then I apologise. However, I doubt it was.
What I'm looking for is someone who can contribute to what England has given to the world: culture, sophistication, genius. A little bit more than an 'ot dog, know what I mean?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users