petero

I hope your right but I do not think that he has the pace to cover that 60 yards before he would be caught, seriously I don't, unfortunately.

Not having read the entire thread I do not know if this has been stated already but here goes. I was utterly critical of Agar when at Hull has his teams alway's seemed to underperform considering the personel they had, but Gentle has had better to utilise and still not done any better, on the contrary he has plumbed new depths. Under this coach Hull are at best very poor and at worst a laughing stock, they are quite simply deplorable and a poor, very poor example of a Rugby League team. The coach when things go right gets and deserves the accolades, when they go as disastrously wrong as at Hull presently then the coach has to take and probably also deserves the stick, along with that the sack as well. Gentle will not be able to resurrect this club now it has passed beyond him and frankly does not deserve the chance to be allowed to either.

I would not contest that explanation at all and the points you make are indisputable, but there does happen to be a pretty good selection without him in the position he would occupy if selected and really we need cover for other positions more urgently than yet another back rower. All the same I do go along with all of that and I could fully understand it were he to be included in the squad, based upon your explanation.

The accurate description I believe is ; petulance. This is prevelent throughout Grahams and in the younger generation that is following it to an even greater degree. Until we return to a disciplinary course for the children that follow, this kind of behaviour, being deplored in this case, will only grow and grow. Everyone know's the answer to the problem yet the trend to let kids rule and continue to be evermore disruptive continues. Acting this way is becoming the norm rather than the exception, for never being chastised means that such conduct is only to be expected, when that does occur.

And yours...................... is? Just one question on Mark Flanagan for Derwent: how many players would you imagine that Flanagan would be behind in contention for an OZ or a Kiwi jersey? Not being critical of you or your opinion as I also believe that Flanagan has done OK, but seriously, can you honestly contend that he is more worthy than the second rowers that WILL be selected/ Sorry but I do not, even though I would not rule him out as possible future rep material, yet like Cudjoe and a few others getting some mention, that time is still some way off yet.

I find it a bit silly to be castigating Joel Tomkins for the one incident that he gave away a penalty last night, when in fact there was nothing to penalise him for in the first place. He spent most of the game out in the centre and consequently turned in one of his lesser performances that I have seen from him, not at all impressive last night but would still be among the first names entered if I was picking the squad. Goulding proved that he is equal to the task if selected and always recalling the performances of Hall V the Southern hemi crowd last year, I would be less than keen on extolling his capabilities taken out of his Leeds comfort zone. Briscoe and Goulding would be my first choice for the wing spots, the Aussies will certainly take a good scud out of their G/F of those that impressed, we ought to do the same. I have chosen Lunt but would be quite happy to see McIlorum instead along with Roby in the Hooker role. Gleeson probably booked his seat too last night and maybe Fielden has done himself no harm on that showing also. Coley ( did he play the full 80?) is better than Lynch and should be considered strongly. Lastly, Deacon well he did last night what we required from an England player in last years comp, kicked the opposition to death. I don't like to say it but the fact remains: we do not have another player in our entire squad with a better even similar similar ability and, please do not give me Sinfield as a credible alternative!

I am amazed at the inclusion from so many, of Cudjoe. I have no dislike of him, on the contrary, but if he is amongst the best we can come up with in the threequarters then I would go with Hannibal ( for gods sake!!) and say stay at home and let the other three Nations contest the comp alone. No disrespect to Cudjoe but in the strictest of terms he is NOWHERE near to being good enough! That said then, I would probably expect to see McNamara take him! Same goes for Myler too. Eastmond simply cannot be risked. It is clearly obvious that he needs time to recover from his injuries and another player will, albeit reluctantly, have to take his place. Burrow would seem the obvious alternative but in Wigans first finals match V Leeds, I took particular notice of when Wigan lost their cohesiveness in that match and surprisingly that was when Deacon left the field. I don't know whether he played in the semi as I was away on holiday, but he did and does possess all the experience required and as someone else noted, is probably the best long kicker we have. Just a thought. I also thought that Burrow had an excellent game in the same match. Robinson has to have some some claim also and he can do Hooker well to, if necassary. No one can deny that Sinfield had his finest rep games at hooker in last years comp, but can he repeat it? S/O for him and, the team would be suicidal, again a possible cue for Mac? I know he will be a squad member but Lunt and Roby would take the hooker roles for me, both have impetus and dynamism and those qualities are what are required to upset the Aussies and the Kiwi's. Tomkins (S) would have been my F/B with Eastmond fit, but I fear he will have to now be in the halves, no fears there the lad has the greatest quality any R/L player can have in abundance: Heart; and one of a lion at that. If its not to be Widdop then there is only one other choice, love or hate him, but the most reliable, wholehearted and vastly experienced Paul Wellens quite simply, has to be there. First named being first choice. Wellens/Widdop Goulden/Hall Gleeson Shenton Briscoe Tomkins Deacon/Burrow Burgess Lunt Fielden Ellis Tomkins O'Loughlin Roby Morley Westwood Graham others Sinfield Hall Atkins Robinson That is I believe as good a twenty three players as we can muster presently. Coley, Bridge, Crabtree, Brown, Murrell all have claims too and I would have no argument with any of those being included. Yet the coach could surprise us all with his choices and really nothing he does would come as a surprise, a shock, possibly, but not a surprise.

No argument with those placings , although Tompkins could well find himself placed highly in the grouping were he to be named and play consistently in the future at FB. However there is an anomaly in the fact that you quote the soggy grounds syndrome as a fact that our Fbs do not have the attacking and backing-up abilities of the S/Hemi ones. That being that the instigator of that utilisation was recognised as being Martin Ryan, of Wigan and G/B fame in the 40s and 50s. There were a large amount of home bred FBs who continued with that trend for a great many years after.

Tell you what, after reading and trying to follow all the various implications involved in that , I cannot help but think that we ought to return to the days of an Clay or Thompson referreeing, when decisions were made on their's and their TJs assumptions and no one else was involved or more importantly, expected to be. This " we have the technology so why not use it" syndrome has frankly gone beyond it's limitations. So much so that the Aussie commentators, who incidentally, speak a little more clearly not to mention objectively, upon this subject are noticeably becoming quite critical of the entire VR system. I find agreement with them on that as I personally believe that as with all items such as this the controlling element of those that grab it is never ending and, the need to go ever further is always paramount in their beliefs.

Only two certainties there: Burgess and Briscoe and I would seriously doubt that there will be any of the others added barring that is, any serious injuries to players who are involved still in the play-offs.

Your exhuberant support for expansion is duly noted and appreciated, by most of the regular subscribers on here, but surely even you can recognise that such an event in any locality would engender a certain swell of support, if only of curiosty value, initially. Sorry Parky but if you want an example of that, take a look back to the inaugural game of Paris St GermaineV Sheffield Eagles ( which the former even won), they had an attendence in excess of 17,000 but that did not hereld any new era or more importantly, continuing support for the game there, did it?

Absolutely spot on. I just wish I could have written that lot as well. That the bias exists and grows ever more so is rejected by so many, yet the facts whern examined scrutinously, speak so very clearly for themselves. We could manage to whistle up our own Ar ******s and still the sports editors of most of the National media would find an excuse to ingnore it. No game gives or offers anymore that a game of Rugby League, also the people involved are among the fittest and best players around in any sport. Yet even when the biggest attendence at any sporting ocassion is an R/L ( Wembley two or three weeks ago) match, the papers and television stations still largely ignore it. We could go and whack the Aussies for the next forty years and they would still persist in ignoring the game almost entirely, or send a union reporter to give his condescendingly 'expert' opinion upon went on: for those interested?

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.

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.

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.

I find that interesting and will broatch the question to you: How with all the detail that you epitomise in that do you explain the anomaly that is Tony Smith. To a lesser degree Brian Noble also? Both have done very well at club level with all the restrictions you quote yet at rep level, neither could claim to have been even partially successful, nor will I accept the whitewashing of a poor NZ touring side for Smith as pany sort of proof that he did do well. I am not at all hopeful but then again MacNamara talks a good game, but so do they all........................ahem.

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.

Totally agre with that and in my own opinion I would go for Perret and Nightingale who are both excellent on the wing and at F/B also. Nightingale is in a superb vein of form and must be a certain starter on the wing. I imagine that Vatuvai will be on the other side but I find as you say that Williams is a bit laconic in his approach to the game and is not that relialbe a player, although when he does want to paly he is much better than Vatuvai and less prone to making unforseen and inexplicable blunders.

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.

As I have stated previously, I do not have a problem with Bailey'sapproach to the game, it's precisely what I personally ,expect from a forward playing the game wholeheartedly. However, in Saturdays match he was out of order, albeit, getting away with it and Radford was the victim of some pretty untoward tactics from Bailey. Yet again the Touch judge on that side of the field is culpable of not observing the game and what goes on during it's progress. This item was highlighted on a thread last week and that official fully exposed the inadequecies of those running the touchline in the present day game. They are not doing the job they are allocated and seemingly so often see only what they want to see. Anyone watching the game properly would have noticed the incident, certainly from the distance the TJ was from it and duly seen (that, although as the ref said to Radford " you over reacted ") which was correct, the events that followed were instigated by Bailey. If one went off then both should have done so, but in today's over sanitised Game the ref felt he had to punish the reacter, rather than the instigator of the incident.

In answer to Bendyas, yes. Dugan has and is quite outstanding and going off one statistic alone : tackle-breaks, he has completely overshadowed every other this season player in the NRL, not just Billy Slater! I don't know if you have been watching MSK and the NRL but Dugan really is something special and is second to no other player in Oz, in practically every aspect expected, not simply of a F/B but for that matter any R/L player regardless of position.

Hall lost credibility with me in last years 4Nations, out of his Leeds comfort zone he was exposed as a deplorable defender and being honest not much better in attack, that is excepting games V France. Dobson has not been at all good and I cannot imagine who has given him their support. But in Roby's case you are way out of order. He has been quite outstanding, certainly from my neutral point of view he has. Back after a mediocre last season to the form we got used to from him in the season prior to that and I for one would have no argument with him being named MoS this season.

Firstly if I may: Hannibal ; shut up! You are embarrassing. Jim, SKD would certainly be in the England squad where he elegible and thats a fact? You are absolutely correct on Shentons defensive efforts in the 2010 4N, he was superb and yes it was only after he left the field that OZ began to make any inroads in the final. Not many have given Inglis a start, chased him down and made the tackle, once he was in the clear! Let's not forget Shenton did that and did it well. I absolutely concur with your comment on Lee Smith: never at centre!! I would not even allow him to carry the boots for the other's as his positional sense is pathetic. Strong on the wing and a pretty impressive finisher too but International class, well diplomatically, I reserve that judgement. On your last comment; there's nothing at all delusional about praising both the Aussies and the Kiwi's players, they are in general, individually and most certainly collectively, with a few notable exceptions, superior to ours, its possible that even Hannibal would find it difficult to argue that point? I don't hold with the supermen accolade, but I can recognise better when I see it. Their entire game is much better structured and more entertaining, the defence over there is so consistently solid and easy matches are almost nil,N/Queensland apart possibly. Whereas we have at least 7 of the 14 S/L sides that cannot be relied upon to turn up consistently.

Now you are tarring with the same....................whatever too. I watch ALL of the NRL and I totally agree with you mainly, that is apart from you stating that NSW had no Halves, they do and did not pick them! Greg Bird would have done a job for them and would also in the 4 Nations for OZ . Jamie Soward is playing out of his skin for St George and the lad was up for the selection he never got. Is Scott Prince a NSWman ? I cannot remember and if Kimmorley deserved his demotion following SOO1 then surely others should also have been shown the door as well.

Inglis will be a bigger loss than Lockyer, think back twelve months? The rest of what you say is spot on, because if we did win it would be billed as the reson why we did and because we were the obviously better team. PS I have a bit of a leaning towards the Kiwi's anyway, Oz at full strength or not.