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
- - - - -

COME ON ENGLAND.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 08:03 AM

ENGLAND CONFIDES THAT EVERY MAN WILL DO HIS DUTY..

Cometh the hour cometh the team.


Edited by EQUALIZER, 23 November 2013 - 08:04 AM.


#2 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:32 AM

Expects maybe?

 

No matter, the sentiment is the right one. I really want England to win this one, whilst struggling to see how they can - and I'm NEVER wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:onthequiet:


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#3 coolie

coolie
  • Coach
  • 3,543 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:47 AM

New Zealand by at least 20

If they don't play their second string

Kiwis on a off day are still too strong for England on a exceptional day

Teams should be picked on merit


Not if your face fits...,

Woo this does sound familiar ;)

#4 Official Rams Updates

Official Rams Updates
  • Coach
  • 255 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

It was a real shame to see England lose in the final minute, but the game was a fantastic advert for just how great Rugby League really is.

 

Please do bring along any friends on Boxing Day and lets try and capitalise off the hysteria and buzz surrounding the world cup. 


Follow us on twitter @DewsburyRams

Facebook: https://www.facebook...buryrams?ref=hl

Our website: http://www.dewsburyrams.co.uk/

Email: info@dewsburyrams.co.uk


#5 andyram

andyram
  • Coach
  • 936 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 08:00 PM

It's been a wonderful World Cup,well organised from the start,the icing on the cake would had been England making the final,still think the best team on the day lost,but i will still be there next Saturday.Oh on Boxing Day i will be bringing a extra person to the game thanks to the world Cup.

#6 mahtsalleh

mahtsalleh
  • Players
  • 48 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:58 AM

How the players rated (on TV, in 30C temperatures, and listening to an Aussie commentator [trying vainly to be neutral] and a defected, English, but now red-shirted, fire breathing, pie-eating, RU defensive-coach summarizer called Shaun), and written to pass the time diligently avoiding watching the current dire events at the Gabba:-

 

TOMKINS-Saved an early try by kicking the ball away just as Luke was touching down, and took a few high balls well and bravely, but disappointed in attack and didn’t link-up as well as he (used to do) with Wigan. Plus for him is that he was probably better than Locke, so may get a starting position next season in Auckland. But he’s going to be expected to produce more spark in the NRL than he did in this tournament overall!

HALL-Tried hard although I felt he was out of position defensively a few times. Pity his juggling skills let him down at a crucial moment.

WATKINS-Took his try well, was always up for it defensively, and the better of a relatively ineffective centre pairing.  Still young and could possibly become a “superstar”. Next for the trip down below the equator?

CUDGOE-Least said the better. Not his best game. Can expect to remain in West Yorkshire unless Salford spend some of their new found big money.

CHARNLEY -had a reasonable game but I felt that Ryan Hall would have scored at least one try had he received the same passes as Charnley did. (The NZ left side defence always seemed potentially suspect).

WIDDUP-Showed why he is Melbourne Storm’s first choice #6. Was always probing and trying something different - and pulled off some good tackles as well. Kicking not too bad apart from one pointless grubber, but then he’s used to having Cooper-Cronk taking the responsibility for that.

SINFIELD-Whilst he was instrumental in laying on passes for two of the tries, he is NOT (never was and never will be) a true scrum half. But you can’t blame the guy for coaches at both club and international level continuously playing him in the wrong position.  Additionally, I can never understand why he makes his goal kicking angles so acute, and that miss of a relatively easy conversion (for a competent goal-kicker) did indeed prove costly.  But he is at least an admirable role model for our players of the future, composed and sportsmanlike at all times.

JAMES GRAHAM-Gave 100% the entire time he was on the field and made some effective offloads. But he does need to quckly and irrevocably forget about using his feet (for kicking purposes).  Managed to avoid showing his cannibalistic tendencies. (Although who wouldn’t want to take a bite out of the incessantly whinging Billy Slater?)

JAMES ROBY-As always, he was sharp around the play the ball, but the Kiwis kept the shackles on.

SAM BURGESS-Confirmed, for anyone who still doubted it, that he is THE best all round forward currently playing the game, and a fully justified choice for MOM. Gave 110% for 80 minutes, and when you’re as big as Sam that kind of commitment is bound to be influential.  Can fully understand why The Gladiator is such a big fan.

LEE WESTWOOD-Was always up for it, and managed to keep his temper pretty much in check (difficult for him). Shame he lost control of the ball as he went over the line.

FERRES-Continued to show that he’s a player who can be an effective member of the national side. Together with such as Hill and the Burgess boys, the England pack looks sound for many years to come.

O’LOUGHLIN-Was in the right place at the right time for his try and took it well, but I felt his overall input showed his lack of match practice/fitness/sharpness - and probably one reason he gave away a few penalties.

 

SUBS

 

GEORGE BURGESS-Could even be as good as his big brother when he grows up (i.e matures, he’s still prone to rushes of blood). Pity he gave away that last minute penalty, although I’ve seen far worse go unpunished.  It was more a sliding than a swinging-arm.

BURROWS-Looked potentially dangerous, as usual, without really clearly breaking the line, and you have to admire a guy running at people three times his size (sadly, like one or two more, he’s nearing the end of his RL shelf life).

HILL-Always a handful and the Kiwis found him hard to stop. Did little wrong, and willing to take the ball forward with a few opponents hanging on.

ABLETT-Presumably McNamara was saving him for the extra time which would have happened had Sinfield converted Watkins' try? To my mind this was a coaching error, why was he on the interchange bench if there was no intention (or preformulated plan) to use him? Don’t ask me.

OVERALL : A better performance than the pundits predicted, but there was a period in the first half when they were camped on the Kiwi line, looked dangerous, and failed to score.  That, to my mind, typifies the difference between Antipodean RL and England. The Aussies would have come away from that period with at least one try, somehow. That failure to be clinical eventually took its toll, and perhaps it’s really down to coaching in the end.  England’s structural play was always superior, but the finishing just lacked the killer touch too often. Can’t fault the effort, nor even the general skill level.  Just needed the “X Factor” such as Johnson’s sidestep and Whare’s athleticism (he didn’t make much contribution apart from miraculously retrieving that ball from touch, but in the end that kind of determination proved critical). 

Perhaps I’m biased but I thought England were the better side, and deserved to be in the final.

 

COACH : MacNamara got the team playing for one another and showing some good football. But his handling of disciplinary issues was way too high-handed and public (even though he refused to talk about specifics). These are young men whose testosterone levels are (just to play the game) necessarily high, and who are going to go offside (behaviourally speaking) now and then. What happened to a quiet word in the ear of the offender(s)? He inferred that other coaches didn’t take strong action on some disciplinary matters. Well no, but then they are still in the World Cup!  Was it really necessary for him to so emphatically show that he is the boss?

 

REFEREE : In common with all Aussie/NZ referees, his handling of the play the ball area was inconsistent, and the penalty count against England was unrealistically high.  That said, England benefited from a couple of his many errors. Aussie refs are used to working in pairs, and so are prone to missing some things. English referees know they need eyes in the back of their heads, and so they have evolved differently. Not saying “we wuz robbed” (rather “we wuz unlucky”), but the game as a whole needs to develop more consistent refereeing standards. One referee or two? I don’t care, but it shouldn’t be dependent on the venue.  

This match proved (what we already knew) that Rugby League can be the best spectator sport in the world, but it has to get on the same page (rule/interpretation-wise) internationally.  And we shouldn’t have to wait 4 years for the next N versus S Hemisphere clashes.  Back in the day before A380’s, when a flight from London to Sydney had about six stopovers, there were regular Test series and tours. Now that it can be done in one 20-hour hop, why can’t Rugby League national sides meet more regularly in meaningful contest?  How about a European team being formed and going on a 3-month tour taking in Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, the Cook Islands, New Zealand and Australia? Perhaps even flying on a Western route and playing a couple of games in the USA, or even slotting in an exhibition game in Tokyo?

Best couple of hours TV entertainment for years! 

 

 



#7 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,577 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 09:59 AM

How the players rated (on TV, in 30C temperatures, and listening to an Aussie commentator [trying vainly to be neutral] and a defected, English, but now red-shirted, fire breathing, pie-eating, RU defensive-coach summarizer called Shaun), and written to pass the time diligently avoiding watching the current dire events at the Gabba:-

 

TOMKINS-Saved an early try by kicking the ball away just as Luke was touching down, and took a few high balls well and bravely, but disappointed in attack and didn’t link-up as well as he (used to do) with Wigan. Plus for him is that he was probably better than Locke, so may get a starting position next season in Auckland. But he’s going to be expected to produce more spark in the NRL than he did in this tournament overall!

HALL-Tried hard although I felt he was out of position defensively a few times. Pity his juggling skills let him down at a crucial moment.

WATKINS-Took his try well, was always up for it defensively, and the better of a relatively ineffective centre pairing.  Still young and could possibly become a “superstar”. Next for the trip down below the equator?

CUDGOE-Least said the better. Not his best game. Can expect to remain in West Yorkshire unless Salford spend some of their new found big money.

CHARNLEY -had a reasonable game but I felt that Ryan Hall would have scored at least one try had he received the same passes as Charnley did. (The NZ left side defence always seemed potentially suspect).

WIDDUP-Showed why he is Melbourne Storm’s first choice #6. Was always probing and trying something different - and pulled off some good tackles as well. Kicking not too bad apart from one pointless grubber, but then he’s used to having Cooper-Cronk taking the responsibility for that.

SINFIELD-Whilst he was instrumental in laying on passes for two of the tries, he is NOT (never was and never will be) a true scrum half. But you can’t blame the guy for coaches at both club and international level continuously playing him in the wrong position.  Additionally, I can never understand why he makes his goal kicking angles so acute, and that miss of a relatively easy conversion (for a competent goal-kicker) did indeed prove costly.  But he is at least an admirable role model for our players of the future, composed and sportsmanlike at all times.

JAMES GRAHAM-Gave 100% the entire time he was on the field and made some effective offloads. But he does need to quckly and irrevocably forget about using his feet (for kicking purposes).  Managed to avoid showing his cannibalistic tendencies. (Although who wouldn’t want to take a bite out of the incessantly whinging Billy Slater?)

JAMES ROBY-As always, he was sharp around the play the ball, but the Kiwis kept the shackles on.

SAM BURGESS-Confirmed, for anyone who still doubted it, that he is THE best all round forward currently playing the game, and a fully justified choice for MOM. Gave 110% for 80 minutes, and when you’re as big as Sam that kind of commitment is bound to be influential.  Can fully understand why The Gladiator is such a big fan.

LEE WESTWOOD-Was always up for it, and managed to keep his temper pretty much in check (difficult for him). Shame he lost control of the ball as he went over the line.

FERRES-Continued to show that he’s a player who can be an effective member of the national side. Together with such as Hill and the Burgess boys, the England pack looks sound for many years to come.

O’LOUGHLIN-Was in the right place at the right time for his try and took it well, but I felt his overall input showed his lack of match practice/fitness/sharpness - and probably one reason he gave away a few penalties.

 

SUBS

 

GEORGE BURGESS-Could even be as good as his big brother when he grows up (i.e matures, he’s still prone to rushes of blood). Pity he gave away that last minute penalty, although I’ve seen far worse go unpunished.  It was more a sliding than a swinging-arm.

BURROWS-Looked potentially dangerous, as usual, without really clearly breaking the line, and you have to admire a guy running at people three times his size (sadly, like one or two more, he’s nearing the end of his RL shelf life).

HILL-Always a handful and the Kiwis found him hard to stop. Did little wrong, and willing to take the ball forward with a few opponents hanging on.

ABLETT-Presumably McNamara was saving him for the extra time which would have happened had Sinfield converted Watkins' try? To my mind this was a coaching error, why was he on the interchange bench if there was no intention (or preformulated plan) to use him? Don’t ask me.

OVERALL : A better performance than the pundits predicted, but there was a period in the first half when they were camped on the Kiwi line, looked dangerous, and failed to score.  That, to my mind, typifies the difference between Antipodean RL and England. The Aussies would have come away from that period with at least one try, somehow. That failure to be clinical eventually took its toll, and perhaps it’s really down to coaching in the end.  England’s structural play was always superior, but the finishing just lacked the killer touch too often. Can’t fault the effort, nor even the general skill level.  Just needed the “X Factor” such as Johnson’s sidestep and Whare’s athleticism (he didn’t make much contribution apart from miraculously retrieving that ball from touch, but in the end that kind of determination proved critical). 

Perhaps I’m biased but I thought England were the better side, and deserved to be in the final.

 

COACH : MacNamara got the team playing for one another and showing some good football. But his handling of disciplinary issues was way too high-handed and public (even though he refused to talk about specifics). These are young men whose testosterone levels are (just to play the game) necessarily high, and who are going to go offside (behaviourally speaking) now and then. What happened to a quiet word in the ear of the offender(s)? He inferred that other coaches didn’t take strong action on some disciplinary matters. Well no, but then they are still in the World Cup!  Was it really necessary for him to so emphatically show that he is the boss?

 

REFEREE : In common with all Aussie/NZ referees, his handling of the play the ball area was inconsistent, and the penalty count against England was unrealistically high.  That said, England benefited from a couple of his many errors. Aussie refs are used to working in pairs, and so are prone to missing some things. English referees know they need eyes in the back of their heads, and so they have evolved differently. Not saying “we wuz robbed” (rather “we wuz unlucky”), but the game as a whole needs to develop more consistent refereeing standards. One referee or two? I don’t care, but it shouldn’t be dependent on the venue.  

This match proved (what we already knew) that Rugby League can be the best spectator sport in the world, but it has to get on the same page (rule/interpretation-wise) internationally.  And we shouldn’t have to wait 4 years for the next N versus S Hemisphere clashes.  Back in the day before A380’s, when a flight from London to Sydney had about six stopovers, there were regular Test series and tours. Now that it can be done in one 20-hour hop, why can’t Rugby League national sides meet more regularly in meaningful contest?  How about a European team being formed and going on a 3-month tour taking in Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, the Cook Islands, New Zealand and Australia? Perhaps even flying on a Western route and playing a couple of games in the USA, or even slotting in an exhibition game in Tokyo?

Best couple of hours TV entertainment for years! 

Good summary that mahtsalleh - I'd add that Cudjoe (in the opinion of my Giants supporting brother) isn't even good enough for the Giants first team. Burrows, like Chase, is great at unlocking second rate SL defences, but gets found out at the highest level. Sinfield is indeed a  great role model but unfortunately not a great stand off -and his kicking game seems to have gone down the pan ( I reckon we would have won it with Broughie). The coach is still our biggest obstacle IMO - let's be honest, England were outstanding in the forwards, but we could easily have conceded a lot more tries out wide thanks to the defensive shambles in the backs. I assume they were using the coach's defensive patterns, which left two on one situations far too often for comfort.

Ah well at least I can now sit back and enjoy the final without the shredded nerves and as an impartial observer. COME ON YOU KIWIS. 



#8 EQUALIZER

EQUALIZER
  • Coach
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 01:52 PM

It all comes down to one thing.Had Sinfield stopped in the defensive line England would be in the final.You run out like he did and you have to make the tackle.He didnt and left a gap.



#9 il cattivo

il cattivo
  • Coach
  • 556 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:25 PM

a famous american football coach once said 'you are only as good as the final result' and as much as people will witter on about missed tackles and goal kicks,penalties and 'the best side lost' stuff,this quote is ALWAYS right.

NZ won because they were the better team.its always the way.


"you never win a game unless you beat the guy in front of you. The score on the board doesn’t mean a thing. That’s for the fans. You’ve got to win the war with the man in front of you. You’ve got to get your man." - Vince Lombardi.

#10 funkmaster flex

funkmaster flex
  • Coach
  • 599 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:50 PM

a famous american football coach once said 'you are only as good as the final result' and as much as people will witter on about missed tackles and goal kicks,penalties and 'the best side lost' stuff,this quote is ALWAYS right.

NZ won because they were the better team.its always the way.

 

I don't think that's strictly true, look at the shape of a rugby ball for example, it could and does bounce numerous and often uncontrollable ways. This means that if you factor in the skill of the player kicking the ball and hoping for it to go a particular way or bounce in a particular manner, then you are playing with odds based on physics. Once you start to factor in odds and a style of physics which can be manipulated you have to consider luck. For this very reason luck certainly plays a part in our game - And if a team capitalises on luck then they could win, without being the best team.

 

Not saying that is what happened on Saturday, just pointing out that sometimes, the best team doesn't win, but the luckiest team does, particularly when the only thing separating two evenly matched sides is a thin sliver of luck.


Edited by funkmaster flex, 24 November 2013 - 06:23 PM.

Living life and loving every second

http://www.summerhol.com


#11 il cattivo

il cattivo
  • Coach
  • 556 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:17 PM

so is it bad luck that we haven't won the world cup since 1972 or good luck the kangaroos have won 9 out of 13 world cups and  haven't lost an ashes series since 1970?


"you never win a game unless you beat the guy in front of you. The score on the board doesn’t mean a thing. That’s for the fans. You’ve got to win the war with the man in front of you. You’ve got to get your man." - Vince Lombardi.

#12 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:53 PM

It all comes down to one thing.Had Sinfield stopped in the defensive line England would be in the final.You run out like he did and you have to make the tackle.He didnt and left a gap.

 

 

If he didn't come out they were outnumbered 3 to 2, so the result may have been exactly the same.

 

Also it didn't come down to one thing - if Westwood hadn't lost his grip on the ball; if the ref hadn't given that penalty; if Sinfield had kicked the goal; if Hall had kept his footing/managed to hold onto the interception; etc - loads of ifs, but we still lost.

 

In my view a real game savvy team would have interfered with the quick restart after the penalty, maybe started a bit of a scuffle, and wiped vital time off the clock. The Aussies would have done this, but they play in the pressure cooker all the time, and that's still the main difference between northern and southern hemisphere teams.


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#13 funkmaster flex

funkmaster flex
  • Coach
  • 599 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:35 PM

so is it bad luck that we haven't won the world cup since 1972 or good luck the kangaroos have won 9 out of 13 world cups and  haven't lost an ashes series since 1970?

 

No, and we both know that was not what I said.

 

I was simply debunking the myth that the better side always wins.


Living life and loving every second

http://www.summerhol.com


#14 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,979 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:40 PM

No, and we both know that was not what I said.

 

I was simply debunking the myth that the better side always wins.

 

 

Although you do say that "luck plays a huge part in our game" which I believe to be plain wrong. Skill, structure, organisation all play huge parts, luck plays a very minor part.

 

 

 

 

:rtfm:


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#15 funkmaster flex

funkmaster flex
  • Coach
  • 599 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 06:22 PM

Although you do say that "luck plays a huge part in our game" which I believe to be plain wrong. Skill, structure, organisation all play huge parts, luck plays a very minor part.

 

 

 

 

:rtfm:

 

I guess in that respect I didn't make myself too clear (edited now) I was aiming that at the bounce of the ball, or how it travels once kicked.

 

Of course the biggest factors in our game are skill, structure, fitness and organisation (amongst other things) the point I was trying to get across - Is that the best team doesn't always win.


Living life and loving every second

http://www.summerhol.com


#16 Bi11

Bi11
  • Coach
  • 491 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 08:12 PM

I hate to say it, but boy did the big lad from Dewsbury play well. 

 

I have not reviewed the last try, but Sinfield clearly had to move fairly sharpish away from the line.  The problem seemed to me to be that he was a little out of position in the first place and had to rush in at an angle.  Had he been in line with the attacking player then he would not have needed to move out quite so quickly and he would have been less likely to have been beaten by the sidestep.

 

Did anyone think that Widdop chose a bad option about 4 sets earlier when he opted for an up and under in the Kiwi half instead of kicking long.  Had he kicked long then it's possible that the Kiwis would not have ended the game so close to the England line in the first place ( and yep, I know the penalty played a big part).  An up and under would have been appropriate if England were chasing the lead, but surely not when defending a 4 point lead near the end of a crucial game.

 

I was impressed with Sam Tomkins.  Clearly he is a marked man, but he played like an extra half back at times and made opportunities for other players.  He's certainly not a one dimensional player.

 

By heck, don't we armchair viewers know a lot!  Terrific game, and in my opinion NZ had to play very very well  to win this game.    Oh, and Mr Cudjoe, not a great game against the Kiwis, but a very good tournament in my opinion.  Ryan Hall might agree. 



#17 mahtsalleh

mahtsalleh
  • Players
  • 48 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 12:24 AM

If he didn't come out they were outnumbered 3 to 2, so the result may have been exactly the same.

 

Also it didn't come down to one thing - if Westwood hadn't lost his grip on the ball; if the ref hadn't given that penalty; if Sinfield had kicked the goal; if Hall had kept his footing/managed to hold onto the interception; etc - loads of ifs, but we still lost.

 

In my view a real game savvy team would have interfered with the quick restart after the penalty, maybe started a bit of a scuffle, and wiped vital time off the clock. The Aussies would have done this, but they play in the pressure cooker all the time, and that's still the main difference between northern and southern hemisphere teams.

 

Sam Tomkins is reported to have just implied the same thing, that the Kiwis and the Aussies have more regular experience of representative games through frequent cross-Tasman Straits internationals and the (Aussies at least) by the annual State of Origin games, saying that until we had more regular experience of such pressure cooker matches, rather than games against such Wales or "Exiles", we'd always be struggling at World Cups. I tend to agree with this so it's down to the Rugby League management to do something about it.  But my guess is that the super League bosses would complain that any such attempt would burn out their "stars" and interrupt their season.  Pity, because this tournament has demonstrated that RL fans are prepared to drag themselves off their sofas on to the terraces, and I'd venture a guess that if the English season started tomorrow a rise in attendances would be discernible.



#18 coolie

coolie
  • Coach
  • 3,543 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 07:11 AM

We lost

Move on and get over it

Its nobody's fault and a team game

#19 il cattivo

il cattivo
  • Coach
  • 556 posts

Posted 30 November 2013 - 04:37 PM

Best team definitely won today.awesome.
"you never win a game unless you beat the guy in front of you. The score on the board doesn’t mean a thing. That’s for the fans. You’ve got to win the war with the man in front of you. You’ve got to get your man." - Vince Lombardi.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users