World cup - the bookies odds thread

[SydneyRoosters]

13 minutes ago, AB90 said:

What an earth are you talking about lol.
Based on pure fact, GB in theory are a superior team to England as they have a wider pool of players to pick from.

No team playing internationals at the end of a long season are ‘full strength’ and that’s Including the PNG team missing Lachlan Lam, Nene McDonald, Xavier Coates and probably more.

So any team who can’t field full strength squad and lose, we as fans have the right to pretend that the result never happened. Got it.

 

I’m not trying to pretend the games didn’t happen but I’m trying to be a factual as possible and those games are not the primary squad so shouldn’t and won’t be talked about when it comes to the fact. It has nothing to with results or the teams they played, if GB had won, it still wasn’t a primary squad so I wouldn’t consider it.

[AB90]

6 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

I’m not trying to pretend the games didn’t happen but I’m trying to be a factual as possible and those games are not the primary squad so shouldn’t and won’t be talked about when it comes to the fact. It has nothing to with results or the teams they played, if GB had won, it still wasn’t a primary squad so I wouldn’t consider it.

Fair enough but I find it very hard to believe that if GB won all four of those games convincingly on that tour you would not be talking about it.

You and I both know that if that tour was just simply a standard England tour it would of been the exact same players playing, same coach, same results etc.

[AB90]

24 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

Based on pure definition and fact that team was not the primary England squad at the time and therefore shouldn’t be considered when talking about GB/ENG all time results. You can argue ol you want about the strength of team or how close It was to the England squad but the fact is it’s not England so it doesn’t matter. Also what players do Great Britain have a availabile that would make it better than the England squad. Only one I can think of is Luke Keary but he obviously wouldn’t play for Great Britain. 

Sure, but the exact same players would of been selected regardless of whether it was England of GB (with the exception of Lachlan Coote I believe). So we are more than justified to use that tour when deciding who may or may not potentially win this WC (you would be silly not to as this is the last time we even played the top nations).
 

It is far more relevant than you referencing results 100 years ago.

But I get it, it doesn’t really fit your narrative.

[SydneyRoosters]

24 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Sure, but the exact same players would of been selected regardless of whether it was England of GB (with the exception of Lachlan Coote I believe). So we are more than justified to use that tour when deciding who may or may not potentially win this WC (you would be silly not to as this is the last time we even played the top nations).
 

It is far more relevant than you referencing results 100 years ago.

But I get it, it doesn’t really fit your narrative.

Of course it is relevant. But so Is 2018 and so is 2017 they’re all relevant as they are all the last few times England/GB played Southern nations. But one tour does not overturn the results they have this decade alone. They’ve came within beating 8 points of beating australia 3 times, Beaten NZ 6 times and almost won the World Cup. What I’m trying to say one tour in 2019 is not as good as a judgement as all there games in the last 10 years. 

[Snowys Backside]

Just gone onto Sky bet and I too cannot believe England are underdogs for this.

A little crispy one gone on for sure, because if they lose, they deserve absolutely NOTHING !!

11/10 !!

I cannot see past the Aussies.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, SydneyRoosters said:

Based on pure definition and fact that team was not the primary England squad at the time and therefore shouldn’t be considered when talking about GB/ENG all time results. You can argue ol you want about the strength of team or how close It was to the England squad but the fact is it’s not England so it doesn’t matter. Also what players do Great Britain have a availabile that would make it better than the England squad. Only one I can think of is Luke Keary but he obviously wouldn’t play for Great Britain. 

It was the primary national team.

It was England + extras, so in theory should have been better. Who was not picked for GB that should have been? 

I don't get this argument. 

[SydneyRoosters]

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It was the primary national team.

It was England + extras, so in theory should have been better. Who was not picked for GB that should have been? 

I don't get this argument. 

No it wasn’t England have been the official national team of the England since the 2008 World Cup. Not Great Britain, they stopped playing in 2007.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

26 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

No it wasn’t England have been the official national team of the England since the 2008 World Cup. Not Great Britain, they stopped playing in 2007.

That's like saying the World Cup didn't count on 95 and 2000.

It was clearly the official national team that year.

[SydneyRoosters]

13 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

That's like saying the World Cup didn't count on 95 and 2000.

It was clearly the official national team that year.

England was the official national from 1995-2000 then they used Great Britain from 2001-2007 then swapped back and have used England ever since. Look at what a wrote before about the timelines where they swapped between England and GB.

[Madgicsh]

Samoa has a very strong forward pack but a HUGE disadvantage in Anthony Milford - he is a born loser!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, SydneyRoosters said:

England was the official national from 1995-2000 then they used Great Britain from 2001-2007 then swapped back and have used England ever since. Look at what a wrote before about the timelines where they swapped between England and GB.

England were not the official team from 1995-2000. England were only used during WCs. GB were very much the national team.

It takes a lot of linguistic gymnastics to try and convince someone that the GB touring team of 2019 were not the national team that year but were other years!

[SydneyRoosters]

27 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

England were not the official team from 1995-2000. England were only used during WCs. GB were very much the national team.

It takes a lot of linguistic gymnastics to try and convince someone that the GB touring team of 2019 were not the national team that year but were other years!

You just proved my point. “England were not the official national team during 1995-2000” 

Just like how now GB are not the official national team in present day.

anyway this argument is never going to end so goodbye.

Edited October 6, 2022 by SydneyRoosters

[AB90]

4 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

You just proved my point. “England were not the official national team during 1995-2000” 

Just like how now GB are not the official national team in present day.

anyway this argument is never going to end so goodbye.

You literally stated in the post further up the thread ‘England was the official national in 1995-2000’.

Now your agreeing with a post stating ‘England were not the official national team during 1995-2000’ and that this somehow proves your strange point????

And I assume you think Tonga never beat Australia & GB in 2019 because that was the ‘Tongan Invitational 13’ side (not the ‘official’ Tongan side).

All very bizarre and pedantic to me.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, SydneyRoosters said:

You just proved my point. “England were not the official national team during 1995-2000” 

Just like how now GB are not the official national team in present day.

anyway this argument is never going to end so goodbye.

How have I proven your point? You said there were? England were the national team for world cups in that period. GB went in several tours, they were the national team then.

You're trying to be pedantic for some reason and failing

[SydneyRoosters]

58 minutes ago, AB90 said:

You literally stated in the post further up the thread ‘England was the official national in 1995-2000’.

Now your agreeing with a post stating ‘England were not the official national team during 1995-2000’ and that this somehow proves your strange point????

And I assume you think Tonga never beat Australia & GB in 2019 because that was the ‘Tongan Invitational 13’ side (not the ‘official’ Tongan side).

All very bizarre and pedantic to me.

I don’t remember writing that ?

[SydneyRoosters]

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How have I proven your point? You said there were? England were the national team for world cups in that period. GB went in several tours, they were the national team then.

You're trying to be pedantic for some reason and failing

Ok Believe what you want. All I’m saying is that the 2019 Great Britain team was not the primary National team and that’s the only thing I care to argue about.

[Dr Tim Whatley]

15 hours ago, SydneyRoosters said:

You can’t tell me a single one of the bookies have even watched a game of super league I’m very confident there making there odds based on media speculation.

I am equally confident that you're talking nonsense.

[SydneyRoosters]

17 minutes ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

I am equally confident that you're talking nonsense.

Thats great, really appreciate your feedback.

[Dr Tim Whatley]

1 hour ago, SydneyRoosters said:

Thats great, really appreciate your feedback.

If you seriously think that a rugby league odds compiler, working for a UK-facing firm, doesn't watch ANY Super League games, then I don't know what else to say. 

[graveyard johnny]

39 minutes ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

If you seriously think that a rugby league odds compiler, working for a UK-facing firm, doesn't watch ANY Super League games, then I don't know what else to say. 

they will be working round the clock - filtering in the length of the grass to the temperament of the ref - its a money spinning science - calculated to fine margins 

[Mr Frisky]

Ryan Hall 28/1 to be top try scorer.

Ok hes past his best but if he plays England will score trys and he has probably the best try to game ratio of any experienced player and has scored more trys against NZ and Oz than anyother player in the WC.

Tomkins 40/1 - if he stays fit worth £10? - just for the odds rather than thinking he will be top try scorer.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Mr Frisky

[SydneyRoosters]

7 hours ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

If you seriously think that a rugby league odds compiler, working for a UK-facing firm, doesn't watch ANY Super League games, then I don't know what else to say. 

Evidently not, they have Samoa has favourites. You can’t convince that none of that has to with the public view.

[UTK]

13 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Ryan Hall 28/1 to be top try scorer.

Ok hes past his best but if he plays England will score trys and he has probably the best try to game ratio of any experienced player and has scored more trys against NZ and Oz than anyother player in the WC.

Tomkins 40/1 - if he stays fit worth £10? - just for the odds rather than thinking he will be top try scorer.

Surely Hall is only going to be backup to Makinson/Young on the wing.

Selection preferences aside I don't think England are a great bet for top tryscorers, Samoa and France are strong second and third seeds and they have the toughest route to the final in going through 2 of PNG/Tonga/Samoa. Aus and NZ have the relatively easier groups and easier QFs - Val Holmes scored 5 in the 2017 QF v Samoa.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

23 hours ago, SydneyRoosters said:

I don’t remember writing that ?

 

On 06/10/2022 at 06:15, SydneyRoosters said:

England was the official national from 1995-2000 then they used Great Britain from 2001-2007 then swapped back and have used England ever since.

 

On 06/10/2022 at 08:01, SydneyRoosters said:

You just proved my point. “England were not the official national team during 1995-2000” 

 

So were they or weren't they?

And why could the national team swap from England to GB and back again those years, but couldn't in 2019? You seem to have missed that information out in your strange take on things.

[Mojo]

2 hours ago, UTK said:

Surely Hall is only going to be backup to Makinson/Young on the wing.

Selection preferences aside I don't think England are a great bet for top tryscorers, Samoa and France are strong second and third seeds and they have the toughest route to the final in going through 2 of PNG/Tonga/Samoa. Aus and NZ have the relatively easier groups and easier QFs - Val Holmes scored 5 in the 2017 QF v Samoa.

The fact that most of the English fans in here thinks that coming 1st in pool A over samoa so confidently makes next week's opener so much more exciting. I'm picking Samoa for the win but it'll be a close match. Which is why Samoa are the favourites now