Dunbar

Just checked a video on Youtube. Yes, they played in these numbers.

That's interesting. The GB squad was named with 3 to be omitted for game day. Did they play the game with these numbers or were they 1 - 13 on the day?

Trent Robinson is easily my favourite person in the whole of professional Rugby League. He is a great coach who wants the game to be played in the right way (no laying down to win penalties), he loves international Rugby League (WCC and internationals) and he invests his own time into helping develop these things. Top, top man.

So, it is 135 from the NRL and 237 from 'other'. I am surprised that the NRL only supplied 80% more than Super League - I thought they would be double at least.

I am curious how you come to this decision when you haven't seen so many of the players in action. What process do you use to pick a winner without actually knowing the players involved? You may be right with this pick, you may be wrong, but I am fascinated to understand how you arrive at this conclusion.

The only thing I can relate it to was my own experience. When I discovered and fell in love with Rugby League I went to every game I could and watched every TV game I could. At the befinning, I didn't know who any of the player were but I learned the game by watching the teams play and understood what each position needed to do based on the number of their shirt... it simply helped me to learn and enjoy the game. If it were today, I couldn't do that with the squad numbers used in the UK and now the World Cup. I would argue it is even more important in the modern game. Yes, a 9 can be at loose forward in a scrum but the counter is that the full back is now the key attacking player on the pitch, creating space and overlaps on both sides of the pitch. I want to see the shapes and structures of 6, 1, 12 and 4 on a shift play to see which players execute to provide space for the winger. It doesn't matter for me now, I know all the positions and the best players (I will probably be a bit lost in Lebanon or Greece games). I am thinking of the next generation not being able to pick up the game like I did because we have decided that letting new fans know what position players are in, and what those positions do, is a thing of the past.

Despite my personal preference for playing numbers 1 to 17 in each game, if we were using squad numbers and names on the shirts I would agree there would be some advantages to that. I would probably see positional numbers as better but would agree that squad numbers and names at least offered value in creating higher profiles for players etc. But without this, all I can see this doing is making the admin easier. Not really the best rationale for making such a decision.

I think, and have stated on here many times, that the World Cup organisers have nailed every decision. But I just can't see it with this one. I just don't understand the value in using non positional numbers. And it seems like I have to say on this thread that this is because I believe that the positional numbers are better for people to watch and enjoy the game, particularly new people. It is not just a personal preference. If squad numbers had clear benefits, I would agree we should use them whatever my personal preferences are.

Yes, I agree. Tom Burgess is always listed as 120 and he said in an interview last year he is 130. It is probably meaningless without accurate data.

Wane has been walking a fine line for some time describing how he wants people who are committed to the English team and how he will not contemplate players with tenuous heritage links. Whether we agree or disagree with this, it is an area where you have to be very careful with your language. They will have spoken about Radley and the fact he was born and raised in Australia but with an English father and the fact he could choose between Australia and England to represent and whether this meant he wasn't 100% an English Rugby League player. With Young eligible to play for Jamaica, Hemmings seems to imply that he is in the same category. At best it is horribly horribly clumsy language and at worst a question of whether a young black man born and raised in England is truly English. The former is bad and the latter horrendous. I want to believe that it was nothing more than poorly thought through questions and answers (and misleading editing) . But it is another instance where our low profile as a sport is a genuine blessing.

I think this shirt is much much better than the Samoa and Tongan one's. I find those too fussy, this is just a nice shirt, clean lines and well balanced. I liked it the first time I saw it and still do.

I would like to see height / weight stats of some of the positions of the big teams....particularly these big forwards we here about for Samoa/Tonga and how they stack up to England. I will have a look tomorrow while I pretend to do some Google Cloud analysis at work.

Is Morrissey a big Rugby League fan then?

England Knights and Scotland squads for Saturday. England Jack Broadbent (Featherstone Rovers), Deon Cross (Salford Red Devils), George Delaney (St Helens), Tyler Dupree (Salford Red Devils), Matthew English (Huddersfield Giants), Ethan Havard, Harvie Hill (both Wigan Warriors), Jordan Lane (Hull FC), Mikey Lewis, Jez Litten (both Hull KR), Ellis Longstaff, Matt Nicholson (Warrington Wolves), Will Pryce (Huddersfield Giants), Oliver Russell (Huddersfield Giants), Josh Thewlis (Warrington Wolves), Liam Tindall (Leeds Rhinos), Danny Walker (Warrington Wolves), Matthew Whitley (Catalans Dragons, Capt.) Scotland Euan Aitken, Luke Bain, James Bell, Ryan Brierley, Kieran Buchanan, Logan Bayliss-Brow, Lewis Clarke, Davey Dixon, Charlie Emslie, Dale Ferguson, Calum Gahan, Guy Graham, Bailey Hayward, Ben Hellewell, Liam Hood, Kane Linnett, Bayley Liu, Sam Luckly, Matty Russell, Kyle Schneider, Jack Teanby, Shane Toal, Alex Walker, Lachlan Walmsley

I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. That is not me dictating anything.

While we are on the theme of finding fault in other people's posts, I find the "I get it. You don't like squad numbers." line to be dismissive and disrespectful. Do you really think all my posts on here have been about my personal preferences and not my desire to see Rugby League displayed in the best possible light at this World Cup. I am not asking if you think I am right or wrong, I am asking what you think my motivations are... do you really think it is only my personal preference? Because I can assure you it is not.

Stop deflecting. I am asking what is the benefit to the tournament of using squad numbers. That, and the fact that no team should need to name their preferred side if they don't want to before the tournament gas started, has been my main point during all this discussion.

edit

I don't see it as arrogant. I believe that the people knocking Australia here are doing it because it is Australia - and as such are essentially defending the squad system that Australia are abusing and making a mockery of. But I just want to know what it is about the use of squad numbers at this World Cup that makes it a better system to the one we have had before.

Tell me what you like about squad numbers and I may come around.

That's the whole point of this stupid decision though. They haven't named any props at 6. They have given out squad numbers. If they had to name a 6 then they have three players who play at 6 for their clubs (Wighton, Munster and Burton) so which should be at 6? If the World Cup organisers had stuck with the traditional (and I think very successful) method of letting teams name a side and give them the numbers that they are playing on the day then every player that playing at 6 in the World Cup would be a stand off... every single one of them.

It seems like you can get angry about a coach not wanting to name his preferred side before he has even had a chance to work with them. I can't.

I typed in 'Rugby sod' and ended up on John Inverdale's Wikipedia page.

That's a terrific team sheet. I particularly like Chris Hill at 7 and Liam Marshall at prop.