Dunbar

I think Widdop is just a better organising and a bettwr running half back/full back (and a better kicking gane). He just has a better all round game. That's not meant to be too critical of Lomax, just that Widdop is top class.

I agree. The strength in depth is better than it has been for a long time. We have a core of around 25 players that wouldn't look out of their depth in this series. Some positions are better covered than others but I guess that is inevitable... I remember when we were picking stand off's to play on the wing and yet today we have McGilvary, Makinson and Johnstone in the English squad, quality players like Davies and Lineham in the Knights team while Manfredi and Hall are not considered due to injury (or in Manfredi's case just returning from injury). Some real depth there.

I don't normally do this but seeing as though you are happy to label other people's comments as amazingly stupid I feel obliged to point out that our sovereign country is in fact The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not the UK of GB.

Yes, I would say an Australian is neutral in a game between England and New Zealand.

Personally I don't want a decider. I want us to win 3-0 and set our sights on being the best Rugby League team in the world.

This New Zealand squad came together over 3 weeks ago and played 16 of the 17 who faced England against Australia on the 13th of October. They then had another two weeks together before the first test. On the other hand, England rested their Grand Final players for the warm up game against France and Bennett stated that Tomkins only joined the squad on the Monday before the first test on Saturday. The Kiwis had all the advantages in preparation for the first test and logic suggests that it will be the English who are more likely to improve as the series progresses as the new spine plays and trains together. I expect another really tough game but if the English have the same discipline and execution in defence I can see a win. Can't wait for game 2.

Great games. I didn't see that many more offloads than today and I certainly think on the whole the players today are just as skilful and athletic (not withstanding that some of the best players of all time were in these tests). By far the biggest difference in the way the game was played back then compared to now was the depth from which the attacking team played. It was not unusual for an attacking team to stand 20 or 30 meters deep as they shifted the ball across the pitch. This allowed creative players much more room and outside backs the chance to use footwork. Today the attacking line is so flat that every player is at the gain line when they receive the ball. Personally, I think this style of play requires greater execution (hence the modern players being skilful) but I don't think it is as attractive to watch. I don't know why the modern game has changed in this way. It is more conservative and maybe it is because of the obsession with field position (in the games above a set of six could end almost at the same point it started and 'the arm-wrestle' for field position was not so prevalent as teams would attack from anywhere). None of this is really to do with the laws of the game but rather the how the game is coached and how it has evolved. I would like to see this style of game return but I am not holding my breath.