RSN

Poorly worded that quote. Should say 'just happened to be them.'

Absoutely this was one of the reasons Paul Scholes retired. Germany's group had spain and Holland in it, one giant was bound to go out and it had to be then.

England out of the 21s outclassed both games. Why don't the best players play. You don't see the likes of Isco opting out to play for the under 21s for Spain.

The one born in Dewsbury?

I agree an average rating would be much better IMO.

You could probably argue cases for Tomkins, Crooks, Brough, Ratchford, Houghton Crabtree Farrell and Paterson.

Everton under achieving? They've been overachieving for 10 years. They haven't spent much at all in that time.

Only really competitive game is Wire v Doncaster. Even then that'll be dependant on whether Wire have some players who need a run out for some fitness.

Looking at England's side it looks like Wigan have a heck of a lot of talent coming through as usual.

How much does the structure of the top end of the game affect the national side though? I personally think it has very little compared to other aspects of the game.We need more kids playing the game which I feel is much more important. One of the reasons why Brazil have won the most world cups is how literally every Brazilian child is introduced to football. It's played throughout the country and the majority have such a passion for it, so they have a greater selection pool than a lot of countries. Not saying the England doesn't introduce football to kids at a young age, but the sheer passion Brazilians seem to have when spreading the game isnt comparable. You see videos of Neymar and Ronaldinho ect growing up playing football and you literally see 20 - 40 kids playing it on an awful surface with barely any footwear on absolutely loving it. This is why they have the most world cups, although they are having a bad spell at the minute. Obviously there is other aspects coaching and how to develop the players but I feel having a greater choice of players is much more important than the structure of the top end of the sport. The 3 x 8 format will IMO make the sport the most entertaining it can be. It will provide intensity in most games and be much better as a spectator sport. Hopefully this will result in more people wanting to take up the game as they are watching competitive games on the tv. Currently I don't think the 14 team format provides this to get people into the sport. I mean which kids from London would want to play for them after watching Sam Tomkins constantly running through the London defence? I ccan't imagine many. That's why I personally think the 3 x 8 system will be much better as an all round. It has it's flaws as most systems do, which have been pointed out in great detail on this thread. If the RFL want to change the system to make the sport more attractive to spectators then I'm not going to knock them for it. If it means more intense games week in week out, then I'm not going to complain, and I'm sure people watching the game for the first time won't either.

RL meltdown probably had an accident in his pants at the news.

Massive maybe IMO. If we are lucky enough to beat sheffield, if fax defend like they did against us we will comfortably beat them even at the shay. I only watched the game in bits but from what I saw, I saw your centre stroll 50 yards up field after returning a kick and then your winger Hardaker managed to step his way to a 60 meter break from his own line and then managed to get an offload away, BTW I reckon Hardaker is destined for super league and is one hell of a player for an 18, he is lightning fast and is quite strong for someone his size.

Widnes are a totally average team and only beat us because we played absolutely shocking. Can you see widnes winning away at Barrow, leigh and fax? Highly doubt it.