Exiled Wiganer

I wasn’t meaning to give anyone credit I was just wondering about who decides what. I had strong views about the Salford debacle and was told in no uncertain terms that it was the RFL/clubs’ fault. I do wonder what system gives a team with 12 overseas players and a 4 figure average more credit than a club like Warrington, contribute players to the international side, who are all in on developing youth and have very strong crowd figures, but as I have not gone to the trouble of reading the rules I would be doing so from a position of ignorance.

Which was what I thought: I only mentioned it because they were being called the IMG ratings.

Indeed. Here we are. Isn’t the key to the matter the last paragraph. So; IMG could say “developing players is the most important thing” and the clubs could say “let’s not bother, give everyone unlimited overseas players and grade them on pre match entertainment instead”. At what point are the criteria a creature of the clubs with IMG simply measuring LED signs?

I agree. It’s cobblers. However, I haven’t put in the legwork to understand the rules. I am even hazy as to whose rules they are: they are announced as IMG’s gradings but I think they are the clubs’ criteria so it’s a bit like giving the accountants credit for a business’ success or failure.

Are we allowed to cal these IMG results? I thought that they were RFL/SL results? Or is that only when there are problems with them? It’s hard keeping track. Oh, and there used to be a Framing the Future set of criteria which included an aim for clubs to have 5 figure average attendances. Those days of yore.

Brian

I will probably have a 2 month run, as that way I can rewatch games.

I would like to defend that statement - it may well be unique for our international side to prepare by individuals having their roles in the potential World Cup sketched out in detail: I have seen changes in Havard (more ball handling) and Smith (more running) which, for all I know is a result of this approach… it was certainly decentralised and it was clearly a model for preparation. I appreciate that it is ridiculous that we have had to go down that route, but I think the idea is a good one, given the ridiculous constraints under which the team has been working. I get the David Brent thing, but I am pleased he has run it up the flagpole to see who salutes. Out of interest has anyone else detected any changes/developments in other players’ style of play.

If HKR fans think Lewis has something to offer then that will do to me. I know we live in a fast paced world but HKR dominated the domestic game over a 14 month period and produced one of if not the best team performance of the year to beat Brisbane. With Lewis at the heart of those successes. There is a Randy Newman song (ask your parents/grandparents) with the line “He may be a fool but he’s our fool…” and that is how I am with Lewis now. When he pulls on the England top he is all of our man.

My dream (and faintly realistic) scenario is England get to the semis and the Kiwis win it. I see no reason why New Zealand can’t do so. I would love the 5 less fancied sides to be competitive. But I fear there is a big gap between the haves and the have nots. Our game is brutal and in the case of the 3 team groups points difference could be a factor and so teams will have an incentive to go for the jugular…

I believe it is a trigger reaction… when I think of any player withdrawing under odd circumstances they always have the face of a certain number 9…

Actually, that wasn’t on my mind at all. We had a fantastic year and it would be churlish even by my standards of churlishness to be that person. But I can follow your line of reasoning. Long term followers of my international stance will recall a certain consistency in my anger at certain players and certain clubs standing down players and leaving us weaker as an international team. Moreover, I believe the game to be best served by developing our players and those players being available to England. It is a shame that what I consider to be valid points can be dismissed as petty envy, but I can see precisely why I am open to that accusation. And have no way of defending it really without taking one of those lie detector malarkies they have on TV.

I will happily blame any player who turns his back on international selection to go on the lash. Moreover, given that all of the Trinity contingent have turned their back on their country (admittedly the majority of their team have no English allegiance at all), it shows Ellis and Powell’s view on the importance of the English game. Which is fine, but next time they proclaim that their win was the greatest thing to happen to the English game in the super league era, I trust I will not be alone in considering that to be complete bull.

Aside from Connor, once the withdrawn players are taken into account, I don’t see too many other options. Once we decided Savala was a good option, and I have no reason to doubt that decision, then the only contentious call I can see is Lewis over Connor. Which is not enough to make me ditch the team. So, Premier will be getting some of my cash.

Aside from Connor, once the withdrawn players are taken into account, I don’t see too many other options. What would be good would be for someone to explain to us who was in and who was out and why. In some sports that happens.