Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ParisSurtout

The Kiwis should be favorites for the Four Nations

91 posts in this topic

You hoping its a close game wrestle then Dave.

An open game on nearly summer pitches will be a fast open game where power and pace will decide the contest.

England need a game that pins Oz and NZ down in their quarter with kicks and chases, that has not been the strong suite in recent times.

I think Oz will play an expansive game where after a grind in the forwards they will push their running Second Rowers out wide (Thaiday, Gallen and Watmough perhaps) to run at the England playmakers and punch holes in the line.

The backs to spread it around and isolate English defenders one on one where a player like Hayne or Slater will be hard to stop.

I hope for the games sake its a tight contest and Oz and England are in the Final.

Nope, not at all, I don't want a close game wrestle, but even in an open game, your forwards need to make the yards. Not sure if you saw the CC Final, but Warrington played with some flair and scored some nice tries, but the forwards needed to lay the platform and that is all I am saying. Our forwards wouldn't have scored enough points to beat Leeds had w ekept it tight, so I am a big fan of moving the ball once the forwards have done their work, something which I feel we have got wrong at Test level for a while now. We have tried to hang on, when I'd rather see us have a bit of a go and move the ball out.

We have seen quite often (usually against the Kiwis who tend to bottle it less) that the Aussies are human, and put under pressure they will make mistakes, the WC Final being a perfect example of it. If we don't move the ball enough though and isolate players and put them into 1on1 situations, then the chances of them making a mistake is drastically reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You hoping its a close game wrestle then Dave.

An open game on nearly summer pitches will be a fast open game where power and pace will decide the contest.

England need a game that pins Oz and NZ down in their quarter with kicks and chases, that has not been the strong suite in recent times.

I think Oz will play an expansive game where after a grind in the forwards they will push their running Second Rowers out wide (Thaiday, Gallen and Watmough perhaps) to run at the England playmakers and punch holes in the line.

The backs to spread it around and isolate English defenders one on one where a player like Hayne or Slater will be hard to stop.

I hope for the games sake its a tight contest and Oz and England are in the Final.

on any pitch it is hard to do anything if your forwards are being knocked backwards and you have no platform. If your forwards are going forwards and getting quick play the balls you get to control the pace of the game.. Like Dave i dont think we have done this right i the past and IMO taken the extra drive rather than releasing the backs as the aussies or kiwis would do. We dominate for periods but never make teams pay.. but without the forwards giving you that platfrom even the aussies would struggle to build much off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the hell just happened thats 4!

Edited by RP London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that SKD would be in the centre spot for England but still maintain that I think Shenton is better, apparently that means I think he's a bad player :rolleyes:

I am an Aussie and I'll give praise where it's due, I just don't think massive raps were justified on Kenny-Dowell, he's a finisher and not a great attacking centre like Inglis, Falou or Lyon etc. He still has a lot of development in him, could be a great player in a few years time.

Certainly agree with the rest of what you've said, the NRL's intensity is in a League of it's own and Super League really needs to strive towards that level of competitivness. That doesn't mean all NRL players are better than their English equivalent though IMO, Burgess and Ellis and to an extent Flanagan have proved that. Ellis and Burgess are two of the top five back rowers in the World and Flanagan played more games in half a year at the Tigers then he did in years at Wigan. England just needs to hope a few backs head over there in coming years, certainly plenty of players that could handle it. Some one I'd like to see:

Sam Tomkins

Michael Shenton

Tom Briscoe

Richard Owen

Ben Jones-Bishop

Kyle Eastmond

Always couldn't hurt to get a few more forwards over here. In particular if Perth get back in 2013 I think they should/will go after a couple of Englishmen. Sam & Joel Tomkins would be a publicity boom after the sucess of Englishmen in recent years. Burgess' parents live on the West Coast too from what I've heard so Luke, George, Tom and Sam may all be in the sights of the Reds,

:rolleyes: wow. I said IMO Shenton is better, did I ever claim SKD was a "terrible player"? Comprehension isn't your strong point.

my point is shenton would not make an impact in the nrl, and would not get near that team of the year so he isn't better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks likes Matai will be out for at least some of the tournament after his effort yesterday.

Make that all the tournament, 7 game ban for the swinging arm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post, and I agree with much of this, in terms of the merits of the England team at least, as I have seen very little of the NRL.

As you say, the three-quarters are much better than they previously were in past years, as are the halves, so this can only be a good thing and move us in the right direction. I'd also hope that we have learnt from the WC and last year's 4N (which was very positive let's not forget).

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

My reference to it being a good post was purely based on the views of the England team rather than the overall post.

I also don't agre with the fact that our forwards were done in the 4N final. I would agree that by the time the Aussies got in the game we should have had more points and been having them pinned in the corners, forcing more mistakes. The forwards were making the territory, but we weren't as clinical in the backs as we should have been.

We can win territory for 60m, and our backs were ruthless enough to get 16 points, the Aussies can have a purple patch for 20 minutes, and they can put 30-40 on you. There will always be spells in the game when the Aussies get their spell, and there is an argument that their forwards stayed in the game for longer, but I think this was easier as their backs helped them get on a roll. England's forwards could make great yards, and then not finish it off, meaning that the Aussies are coming straight back at them. Had we been more clinical and turning them round more (the backs job IMHO) then it would hav been more difficult for their forwards to turn the game round and claw themselves back into it.

We have seen this in a couple of crucial games against the Kiwis, namely the TriNations final and the WC Final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My reference to it being a good post was purely based on the views of the England team rather than the overall post.

I also don't agre with the fact that our forwards were done in the 4N final. I would agree that by the time the Aussies got in the game we should have had more points and been having them pinned in the corners, forcing more mistakes. The forwards were making the territory, but we weren't as clinical in the backs as we should have been.

We can win territory for 60m, and our backs were ruthless enough to get 16 points, the Aussies can have a purple patch for 20 minutes, and they can put 30-40 on you. There will always be spells in the game when the Aussies get their spell, and there is an argument that their forwards stayed in the game for longer, but I think this was easier as their backs helped them get on a roll. England's forwards could make great yards, and then not finish it off, meaning that the Aussies are coming straight back at them. Had we been more clinical and turning them round more (the backs job IMHO) then it would hav been more difficult for their forwards to turn the game round and claw themselves back into it.

We have seen this in a couple of crucial games against the Kiwis, namely the TriNations final and the WC Final.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Matai has been suspended for seven games.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Hes always 2 days behind with his "exclusives"

Mine was 2nd hand of Sporting Life i think :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hes always 2 days behind with his "exclusives"

Mine was 2nd hand of Sporting Life i think :lol:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anyone heard that vainikolo is off to glucester rugby union???

Never mind that - Wally Lewis is coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017