Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Luckiest and unluckiest

Player in/out the WC squad

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,080 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:45 AM

Is being related to Sinfield insulting? You do whinge an awful lot. I have never seen a statement made about Sinfield that you two have waded into because someone dare criticise Sinfield.

 

So arguing Sinfield shouldn't be in the squad is pathetic but saying he should isn't. Hmm interesting. I will bear that in mind going forward.

No,resorting to statements like "I'd rather have the waterboy than Sinfield" or "Sinfield is rubbish" are pathetic.up until that point your statements were quite valid.


Founder of the convent pontoon team.

#62 wonky

wonky
  • Coach
  • 4,173 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:58 AM

i would say luckiest has to be liam farrell who was anonymous for 3/4 of the season and nowhere near international level. same goes for briscoe.
unluckiest i would go for lunt but im biased being a town fan and ratchford who in my opinion is a better full back than any others in the squad including tomkins who i would have in the halves.
the futures bright,the futures blue and white

#63 christopher

christopher
  • Coach
  • 1,217 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:08 AM

Is being related to Sinfield insulting? You do whinge an awful lot. I have never seen a statement made about Sinfield that you two have waded into because someone dare criticise Sinfield.

So arguing Sinfield shouldn't be in the squad is pathetic but saying he should isn't. Hmm interesting. I will bear that in mind going forward.

Again grow up. Nobody has said your not allowed an opinion that's what this board is for but whilst you continue to post like you do with childish insults you will continue to get derided.

As for whinging if you can't see that it is infact you that keeps whinging about McNamara and Sinfield then you clearly are blind.

#64 Wally123456

Wally123456
  • Players
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:11 AM

Luckiest - Sinfield, Ablett

Unluckiest - Lunt, Kirmond



#65 hoff

hoff
  • Coach
  • 160 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:11 AM

Ratchford should have been in IMO

#66 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 3,854 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:51 AM

7723 you actually started your argument fairly well, but there isn't any need for petulant name calling ect.

 

My point of view on Sinfield will always be as it has been. He isn't a bad player as people make him out to be, he's been in the top bracket of SL players for the best part of a decade now and has a pivotal role in the Leeds side. He has the sufficient attriubutes required at SL level to do an affective job and also guide Leeds round the park and captain the side and lead them to success.

 

But international level is just a step up in which his ability of being an RL player cannot make. He is to slow, his disribution out wide is to slow, his creativity isn't the best and it's now fairly debatable that his kicking game isn't the best this country has to offer. His organisation is exceptional yes, but we have countless number of players who are more than capable of doing this. The fact he hasn't been anywhere near the top of the albert goldthorpe medal table, super league dream team or man of steel for a while now suggests that his form is not even that good at SL level. I can't see how you can argue his form since 2011 has earned him a place in the squad because quite frankly it hasn't. A couple of exceptional performances at the end of the 2012 season do not make up for 2 years of average. I also don't take the argument that he will be better if he plays for England the same role he plays for Leeds because I don't think organisation can cover up obvious flaws in his attacking play. 3 - 4 decent performances in 30 RL games also suggests he doesn't have the ability to step it up. One thing I will credit Sinfield with is not going missing when his team are struggling (Brough is common for this, although he didn't against Wire in the playoffs) Sinfield will always carry on as he is and try to get his team on the front foot, regardless if his efforts are good enough.

 

Farrell and Ablett are so lucky to be ahead of Kirmond. Kirmond has been the best second rower this season by some distance and I think the reason he hasn't been picked is because he hasn't been wearing one of the shirts of the former two players.

 

I'd of had Ratchford is for versatility and not picked Tom Briscoe. Briscoe has done absolutely nothing to suggest he should be in the side. I don't agree with dropping Hardaker for him because Hardaker is a brilliant back up for Tomkins.

 

Lunt is unlucky as he's been the best hooker in the country for the last 18 months. None of the hookers selected ahead of him have showed no reason why they should of been.

 

Crabtree behind T Burgess is controversial but I can understand why it was done.

 

Smith is unlucky and should be ahead of Sinfield.

 

Apart from that I believe most have earned there place in the squad.



#67 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,080 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 11:55 AM

Valid points.

Re: Kirmond, he's had a good season at wakefield yet struggled to get into the huddersfield side.Is he really international class or has he just been a standout player in a relatively poor side?


Founder of the convent pontoon team.

#68 christopher

christopher
  • Coach
  • 1,217 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:10 PM

RSN valid points put in a well written post (others take note!) and I don't 100% disagree with your opinions in Sinfield.

I'm just hoping that Mcnamaras plan to keep a settled squad actually pays some dividends because as you rightly point out if the team was picked solely in current form a number of players have been over looked, having said that I actually think Mcnamaras approach is a good one and we will see a much improved tournement from England. We're not IMO good enough to win it whoever we pick as I just think the Australians are just a class above, we will beat then once this tournament though and I hope that's in the final.

#69 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 3,854 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:18 PM

Valid points.

Re: Kirmond, he's had a good season at wakefield yet struggled to get into the huddersfield side.Is he really international class or has he just been a standout player in a relatively poor side?

 

I just think he is international class. His work rate, dominance in the tackle and strong running going to forward and also he has a knack of running very good lines.

 

He reminds me of Ben Westwood in a sense of work rate and ethic. Except Ben Westwood has a lot more aggression in his game (which I prefer in a second rower) but then again Westwood gives away a lot of silly penalties which Kirmond doesn't. Although I wouldn't argue Kirmond is better than Westwood as Westwood has proven himself at the highest level. I'm just basing it on raw ability I've seen of him in a Wakefield shirt, but as you say I may just be saying this because he looks outstanding next to very ordinary players.



#70 wonky

wonky
  • Coach
  • 4,173 posts

Posted 04 October 2013 - 12:40 PM

i think lukiest to be anywhere near the england squad....steve mcnamara. but thats for another discussion.

Edited by wonky, 04 October 2013 - 12:41 PM.

the futures bright,the futures blue and white




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users