Roy Haggerty

I guess what I’d say about Brinson is that because the defensive line was stronger, he wasn’t exposed defensively like Welsby was. But in attack I thought he was very similar. Several times when he joined the line, three Aussies were instantly on him to smother him, which is exactly what they were doing last week. Clearly that’s drilled defence for them, and our attack this week looked no more likely to counter it than last week!

Just got back. Will watch the recording, but impressions from the game: 1) I was wrong about mcmeeken and Watkins - they were great out there. 2) the pack as a whole matched the Aussies on the field. A platform was laid. 3) Farnworth the best 3/4 on the field. 4) didn’t see anything particular from Brinson except a shocking over the top leap-and-miss for the first Aussie try. 5) much better kicking game than last week, with contested kicks. Should have put more rubbers in given the wet ground, and the fact our closest attempt to score was a grubber 6) our attack was still woeful. No dummy runners, very little line running, lots of basic shifting down the line. You could see how comfortable the Aussie defence was, even down to 12 on their own line. 7) the stadium is lovely when you’re in your seat, but it needs a ton more toilets, and the bottlenecks at entrance and exit are scary As a saints fan, that felt like watching us for the last 3 years: plenty of effort, plenty of decent players, plenty of possession and territory, and a solid defence. But just no creativity and no sense of any kind of attacking shape or drilling to actually get the ball over the line

And changed the rules to allow clubs to field 10 second rate Antipodeans in every 17 man squad they name.

I’ve watched it now. There’s an element of scapegoating going on. Welsby was outplayed by his opposite number, but so was every England player. I think he suffered the comparison particularly because his oppo was Reece Walsh, who was the best player on the field. I could find mistakes made by nearly all the players from quick memory: Bateman gave away a stupid penalty; Williams, Wardle and Lees dropped the ball in crucial attacking positions; Knowles did a poor offload; Lewis missed some key tackles and was rounded by Walsh etc etc Tbh, watching the game on tv has me tempering my criticism a bit. In that first half, England were very much in the game. They created genuine chances and were denied twice by acrobatic anticipation by Walsh. It was a much more equal 1st half than the game as a whole felt. In the second half, though, there’s no getting away from the fact that they were better than us in every facet of the game : forwards, halves, backs. It really felt like the big collapse in the second half was mental: once the Aussies scored at the beginning of the second half, we looked like we lost mentally, and became much more disjointed and on the back foot.

The kicking game was actually one of the greatest worries we had. Cleary’s kicks were mountainous, and nearly always landing where they could be competed for. Ours were just hoofs downfield, collected with no chasers nearby by a Aussie fullback with lightning bolts for feet. Smith needs to be in next week for his boot and organisation. Whether it’s Williams or Lewis who makes way is a matter for debate.

At the game, it seemed that we stuck to the SL standard or having the first 3 tackles be one man hitups by three quarters, getting smashed by gang tackles. The Aussies, otoh, seemed to use their forwards for those hitups. Bigger men, not getting dominated in the tackle, and leaving their speedsters with a lot more energy to run riot out wide.

Exactly. I was there, and whenever England gave the crowd something to cheer, they cheered. Plenty on their feet shouting when England looked like they might do something. It’s just those occasions were few and far between. And nobody, no club fans, get really excited when their team is 24-0 down and being battered.

Big Nigel is holding the hammer....

Great result for Toulouse. I’m sure big Nigel and the luddites will still exclude them. But at least it’ll have to be shameless. They’ve got the IMG score, they’ve won the championship. They are absolutely, with certainty, one of the top 14 clubs in the sport. They’ll be excluded because they’re French. And the small-town chumps who are now controlling the game think they won’t be able to sponge enough extra pies from their fans once a year. No other reason.

The McManus of 2025 is not the same McManus of 2015. Decision making and judgement on all matters appears to be miles off what it was. It’s quite concerning tbh.

Oh come on, Martyn. Are you really trying to say that anyone who has been a senior politician or civil servant will inevitably be an unimpeachable paragon of fairness and impartiality? Have you met many? I can only recommend you watch a few episodes of “Yes Minister”, where it’s explained quite clearly that one doesn’t set up an investigative committee without first knowing what its conclusions are going to be, and picking the Chair is very much part of that!

Phil really needs to let the other guys say more. He just steamrolls over them with his take, and doesn't give them space and time to set out a different view.

Journos. They are, tbh, although given the tiny world of RL journalism, and the need to maintain access, they're using phrases like "shock decision" or "incredible claims", rather than "corrupt bastards" and "lying git". But tbh the issue is who cares? A section of the fanbase will care, but can do nothing, although a few will doubtless cross the disillusionment line which results in them walking away from the game. The owners will gamble that they'll get more new away fans from Bradford to cover the loss of any home fans. It really is that small-time, the calculation they're making atm. It's not millions which are at stake here, it's tens of thousands per club. That's how desperate we are.

Yes. You can have corrupt legislatures where all/ a majority of the members are corrupt. Likewise, if all the Directors of a company agree to defraud the taxman, or take bribes, it's still corrupt. It's what you do which defines the corruption, not how you decided to do it.

Yeah, whereas Salford and Huddersfield, to name but two, have been making a massive contribution. More like them, I hope.