northamptoncougar Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 There's been a debate for the number one shirt between Tompkins / Hardacre and Shaul. All have their for and against but personally I wonder why Ratchford hasn't been mentioned more? He's a brilliant all round rugby player and always seems to do things that little bit different. On current form he'd start above all 3 for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 From being one of England's strongest positions full back is starting to look a little bit of a problem. Looking at the above I don't think Tomkins is the threat he used to be in attack, Hardaker is playing centre or wing off the bench in the NRL and Shaul is inexperienced at that level. Ratchford could be a shout but I also think Lomax is a serious consideration. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Lomax or Ratchford in current form in my opinion. Ratchford would be a certain starter if he had Lomax's passing game as would Lomax if he was as good as Ratchford under the high ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northamptoncougar Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 I've only seen Tompkins 3 times since he's returned but in that time I haven't seen one line break. He's no real threat to a defence if they know he's purely a link that will pass the ball. Hardware is shot to pieces whilst I think Shauk is a bit too lightweight (like Tompkins) for international level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 As a Wire fan I beg Bennett not to pick Ratchford at fullback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 As a Wire fan I beg Bennett not to pick Ratchford at fullback. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Why not?i find his defence appalling and his lack of respect carrying the ball a real issue. He also has poor distribution, particularly when comparing to the likes of Hodgson.I would have him on the bench as a utility but he doesnt command any place, i think he should have been an attacking 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odsal Outlaw Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Why not? Loose carry every time. Nottingham Outlaws Rugby League Harry Jepson Winners 2008 RLC Midlands Premier Champions 2006 & 2008 East Midlands Challenge Cup Winners 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 Rotterdam International 9's Cup Winners 2005 RLC North Midlands Champions 2003 & 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackojacko Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Tomkins has had a couple of games where he's looked class but for the most part he's been a shadow of the player he was before his second season down under. Shaul is a great runner and support player but inexperienced as mentioned above and I'm not convinced of him as a ball player. Lomax could be good but he's not that much more experienced either. Super 8s should be really important in terms of making this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meast Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 At the moment Scott Grix could probably get a game if he wasn't Irish Huddersfield Giants Supporters Association Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Tomkins should be England full back. He is coming back from a terrible run of injuries but is showing flashes. His defence is improving too. We need a ball playing number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Tomkins should be England full back. He is coming back from a terrible run of injuries but is showing flashes. His defence is improving too. We need a ball playing number 1.I thought Tomkins showed a bit of his old self the other night. We don't need a god England full back now, we need a good fullback in November. Ron Banks Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 From being one of England's strongest positions full back is starting to look a little bit of a problem. Looking at the above I don't think Tomkins is the threat he used to be in attack, Hardaker is playing centre or wing off the bench in the NRL and Shaul is inexperienced at that level. Ratchford could be a shout but I also think Lomax is a serious consideration. You omit Shaul on the grounds that he is inexperienced at that level, well considering that it is against NZ, if we throw Aus into the equation that would be the only other opportunity any player would have at that level, playing against Wales, France or Scotland does not come near that level. Ratchford, one full international v the exiles in 2012, came in when a number of player's were unavailable, and 2 England Knights apperences, Jonny Lomax not played at International Level are 2 other consideration's you suggest, could I suggest that neither have the experience at that level? "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 At the moment Scott Grix could probably get a game if he wasn't Irish Is that a tounge in cheek statement Meast? "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Tompkins problem is he is playing in a Wigan side that has all attacking creativity strangled out of it. Once freed from that, he'd be OK in my view. His defence is good, in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrywebbisgod Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Keith Mumby or Ian Wilkinson. Thank you for your valuable contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 You omit Shaul on the grounds that he is inexperienced at that level, well considering that it is against NZ, if we throw Aus into the equation that would be the only other opportunity any player would have at that level, playing against Wales, France or Scotland does not come near that level. Ratchford, one full international v the exiles in 2012, came in when a number of player's were unavailable, and 2 England Knights apperences, Jonny Lomax not played at International Level are 2 other consideration's you suggest, could I suggest that neither have the experience at that level? Very fair points. And I am not omitting Shaul at all.It is the catch 22 of Rugby League, players are inexperienced at international level but internationals are so infrequent that the only way to get that experience is in big games (4 nations, world cups etc.). I guess I would revise and say I would go for a talented young exciting full back... that could be Shaul or it could be Lomax. Tomkins is still the favourite of course. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 Tompkins problem is he is playing in a Wigan side that has all attacking creativity strangled out of it. Once freed from that, he'd be OK in my view. His defence is good, in my view.i dont think Tomkins has ever really repeated club form for England at fb, but he is probably our best option providing he stays fit. We need to use him for quality link play like the NZ Warriors did rather then hoping for open field breaks which are rarer at top test level. Remember on of Halls wonder tries at Wembley a few years back when Tomkins linked in tge line - that is exactly what was missing vs tge Kiwis last year when not a single back scored in three games, almost unheard of.His defence impressed me on Friday too. So focus in the structure and link play he gives and Tomkins gets it for me. Hardaker as MOS couldnt do much last year against more organised defences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 i find his defence appalling and his lack of respect carrying the ball a real issue. He also has poor distribution, particularly when comparing to the likes of Hodgson. Understood - I'd picked up his poor distribution but hadn't noticed his defence/carrying ability. I'll bow to your expertise as you watch him far more often than I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 i dont think Tomkins has ever really repeated club form for England at fb, but he is probably our best option providing he stays fit. We need to use him for quality link play like the NZ Warriors did rather then hoping for open field breaks which are rarer at top test level. Remember on of Halls wonder tries at Wembley a few years back when Tomkins linked in tge line - that is exactly what was missing vs tge Kiwis last year when not a single back scored in three games, almost unheard of. His defence impressed me on Friday too. So focus in the structure and link play he gives and Tomkins gets it for me. Hardaker as MOS couldnt do much last year against more organised defences. "last year when not a single back scored in three games" And your reason is Dave? For me, the structure we employed or more to the point didn't employ, which albeit we lost to both Aus and Kiwi in 2014 Four Nations, England played a far more expansive game than they had previously in S Mac's watch as coach. In 2014 England had Paul Deacon as Assistant, and it looked very clear that the team were playing different tactics to what they had in the previous 5 years, last year Deacon left and was replaced by James Lowe's and we were dour when it came to the attacking side of the game. The great Billy Slater would have struggled to make an impact in that team and those tactics from Full Back. My point is, we can all put forward our personal favourite for the F.B. position (as indeed any position) but it depends how the coach wants to use his charges which will dictate his selection. Just a thought! "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushy Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 If Tomkins gets into his stride then his value to England's attack is immeasurable and should be in the side. He's not there yet though. Ratchford is excellent but I wonder if centre or utility is where he is best. Hardaker may yet show he's a great centre or wing in the NRL, and at international level maybe that's his best contribution. Shaul has potential but I wonder if people are seeing things in him that wouldn't get translate to international success and I'd like to see a more rounded came out of him first. Another name to consider is Widdop who spent years as a full back and knows England inside and out. I'd have Gale and Williams ahead of him in the halves so maybe he's a genuine contender for our ball-playing and running full back position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 "last year when not a single back scored in three games" And your reason is Dave? For me, the structure we employed or more to the point didn't employ, which albeit we lost to both Aus and Kiwi in 2014 Four Nations, England played a far more expansive game than they had previously in S Mac's watch as coach. In 2014 England had Paul Deacon as Assistant, and it looked very clear that the team were playing different tactics to what they had in the previous 5 years, last year Deacon left and was replaced by James Lowe's and we were dour when it came to the attacking side of the game. The great Billy Slater would have struggled to make an impact in that team and those tactics from Full Back. My point is, we can all put forward our personal favourite for the F.B. position (as indeed any position) but it depends how the coach wants to use his charges which will dictate his selection. Just a thought! I also think we need to consider the fact that at least two of the three games were played on torrential rain... not exactly the conditions to play an expansive game.It could be argued that England scored all their points through the forwards because they played the conditions better than their opponents. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryO Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 I also think we need to consider the fact that at least two of the three games were played on torrential rain... not exactly the conditions to play an expansive game. It could be argued that England scored all their points through the forwards because they played the conditions better than their opponents. Fair point,But throughout the series I felt that we were just lack lustre, something missing, void of offensive structure, I nearly said game plan but all game plans do not have to involve entertainment for the paying public. "If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 "last year when not a single back scored in three games" And your reason is Dave? For me, the structure we employed or more to the point didn't employ, which albeit we lost to both Aus and Kiwi in 2014 Four Nations, England played a far more expansive game than they had previously in S Mac's watch as coach. In 2014 England had Paul Deacon as Assistant, and it looked very clear that the team were playing different tactics to what they had in the previous 5 years, last year Deacon left and was replaced by James Lowe's and we were dour when it came to the attacking side of the game. The great Billy Slater would have struggled to make an impact in that team and those tactics from Full Back. My point is, we can all put forward our personal favourite for the F.B. position (as indeed any position) but it depends how the coach wants to use his charges which will dictate his selection. Just a thought! this is the same reasoning that gave Sean Long the credit when Salford were excitibg in attack but now Saints are boring he gets no stick.McNamara has always had England playing an expansive style tgroughought his tenure. Unfortunately our 6 was dire, 1 was inneffective and 7 had to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 I also think we need to consider the fact that at least two of the three games were played on torrential rain... not exactly the conditions to play an expansive game. It could be argued that England scored all their points through the forwards because they played the conditions better than their opponents. we see tries by backs all the time in poor conditions we shouldnt overstate that. Our link play to backs was dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.