Sat 12th Nov: RLWC SF: England v Samoa KO 14:30

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

Nothing odd about it mate, I'd say it odder to keep banging your head against the wall thinking something will change but it takes all sorts. 

It’s odd because you not attending a RLWC final that you’ve bought a ticket for seems an over the top reaction to a narrow loss.

It could be a great game next weekend, and as a fan of the game in general i can see how Samoa getting there has positives.

 

But it’s your choice.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

It's called realisation. Likewise, all the best. 

Do you support a club?

[The Masked Poster]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Do you support a club?

No 

[Tippytoe]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What do you mean ‘had enough’ what are you going to do?

im afraid it is sport. We don’t have a right to win anything.

Let's just roll over then and surrender to mediocrity!

[johnh1]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s odd because you not attending a RLWC final that you’ve bought a ticket for seems an over the top reaction to a narrow loss.

It could be a great game next weekend, and as a fan of the game in general i can see how Samoa getting there has positives.

 

But it’s your choice.

Absolutely. I'm really looking forward to the final. It's rugby league. It's the World Cup Final at Old Trafford. What's not to like?

[The Masked Poster]

1 minute ago, johnh1 said:

Absolutely. I'm really looking forward to the final. It's rugby league. It's the World Cup Final at Old Trafford. What's not to like?

Been there several times mate, t-shirts bought. Now tired of the same old routine but I accept that you might not be. That's ok, I just am. 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

The answer is to go back to not following the game. It's probably not going to be difficult. 

Thats your prerogative but I cannot for the life of me see how as a Rugby League fan England winning or losing would make me stop following the sport.

[bratman]

If you're not on your game Tonga and Samoa can turn you over, even Fiji and PNG can on their day.

It's happened to England, NZ and Aus in recent years.

Isn't this a good thing really? If France can get up to standard we're possibly looking at 8 teams who can each other a decent game.

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, Tippytoe said:

Let's just roll over then and surrender to mediocrity!

Eh, what are you going to do?

[Chrispmartha]

11 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

No 

So you only watch international RL?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Thats your prerogative but I cannot for the life of me see how as a Rugby League fan England winning or losing would make me stop following the sport.

Or why you would post on a RL forum incessantly saying this time you really, really, really, have had enough.

I'd suggest Football and probably Man C might suit more - guaranteed to win trophies then and be happy.

Personally I think the account has to be a ringer.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, bratman said:

If you're not on your game Tonga and Samoa can turn you over, even Fiji and PNG can on their day.

It's happened to England, NZ and Aus in recent years.

Isn't this a good thing really? If France can get up to standard we're possibly looking at 8 teams who can each other a decent game.

It seems some moan that there aren’t enough quality teams but then moan when  more appear.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Or why you would post on a RL forum incessantly saying this time you really, really, really, have had enough.

I'd suggest Football and probably Man C might suit more - guaranteed to win trophies then and be happy.

Personally I think the account has to be a ringer.

Football, with Englands record, hed go nuts!

[Dunbar]

So, I have expressed some frustration with how little time Tom Burgess spent on the pitch yesterday (just 31 minutes, and despite that being the middle forward on the pitch with the most metres, from either tean).  So, I thought I would have a look at how the interchanges played out.  I don't think we had any injuries to contest with and so these were tactical interchanges.

 

Interchange 1 (19th minute):  Cooper on Burgess off

Interchange 2 (26th minute): Thompson on Hill off

These are pretty standard middle interchanges

Interchange 3 (33rd minute): Knowles on Radley off

So, this one is strange for me.  I thought it was clear that McIlorum was struggling in the last 10 minutes of the first half - I would have expected Knowles to come on for McIlorum and Radley to shift to 9 and chance to really up our intesity.

From this point, England played through to the 53rd minute with the same 13 on the pitch.

Interchange 4 (53rd minute): Radley on Thompson off

Interchange 5 (59th minute): Hill on McIlorum off

So, this is a chance to give McIlorum a break at almost the 60 minute mark.  I am surprised that Hill was the first middle back on with Burgess only doing 19 minutes at the start.

Interchange 6 (60th minute):  McMeeken on Watkins off

Was this a tactical change or was Watkins struggling?

Interchange 7 (68th minute):  Burgess on Cooper off

Burgess finally back on the pitch

Interchange 8 (70th minute): McIlorum on Knowles off

McIlorum back after an 11 minute break

 

So, the upshot of all this is that McIlorum had to play 69 minutes despite clearly struggling with the pace of the game and Radley doing 60 minutes.  I would have offered McIlorum a longer spell than just 11 minutes.

Cooper and Hill played the longest minutes for middle forwards (49 and 46 minutes) while Tom Burgess only 31 minutes.  He averaged 44 minutes in the NRL this year and so can clearly do more and England were a lot better when he was on the pitch.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Dunbar

[johnh1]

24 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Been there several times mate, t-shirts bought. Now tired of the same old routine but I accept that you might not be. That's ok, I just am. 

I've been there many times as well mate. And I travel over from Gran Canaria. So I'm going to go and enjoy myself. If you can't be bothered, that's up to you.

[johnh1]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, I have expressed some frustration with how little time Tom Burgess spent on the pitch yesterday (just 31 minutes, and despite that being the middle forward on the pitch with the most metres, from either tean).  So, I thought I would have a look at how the interchanges played out.  I don't think we had any injuries to contest with and so these were tactical interchanges.

 

Interchange 1 (19th minute):  Cooper on Burgess off

Interchange 2 (26th minute): Thompson on Hill off

These are pretty standard middle interchanges

Interchange 3 (33rd minute): Knowles on Radley off

So, this one is strange for me.  I thought it was clear that McIlorum was struggling in the last 10 minutes of the first half - I would have expected Knowles to come on for McIlorum and Radley to shift to 9 and chance to really up our intesity.

From this point, England played through to the 53rd minute with the same 13 on the pitch.

Interchange 4 (53rd minute): Radley on Thompson off

Interchange 5 (59th minute): Hill on McIlorum off

So, this is a chance to give McIlorum a break at almost the 60 minute mark.  I am surprised that Hill was the first middle back on with Burgess only doing 19 minutes at the start.

Interchange 6 (60th minute):  McMeeken on Watkins off

Was this a tactical change or was Watkins struggling?

Interchange 7 (68th minute):  Burgess on Cooper off

Burgess finally back on the pitch

Interchange 8 (70th minute): McIlorum on Knowles off

McIlorum back after an 11 minute break

 

So, the upshot of all this is that McIlorum had to play 69 minutes despite clearly struggling with the pace of the game and Radley doing 60 minutes.  I would have offered McIlorum a longer spell than just 11 minutes.

Cooper and Hill played the longest minutes for middle forwards (49 and 46 minutes) while Tom Burgess only 31 minutes.  He averaged 44 minutes in the NRL this year and so can clearly do more and England were a lot better when he was on the pitch.

Good stats those, Dunbar. Any idea what the scores were when Mac was off?

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, johnh1 said:

Good stats those, Dunbar. Any idea what the scores were when Mac was off?

12-20 when he went off.

20-20 when he came back on.

[johnh1]

Cheers Dunbar. I remember thinking why has he come back on? We were doing well.

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Eh, what are you going to do?

Stamp their tippytoes

[Tippytoe]

29 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Eh, what are you going to do?

What am I going to do? Is this a stock question Eh? 

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, I have expressed some frustration with how little time Tom Burgess spent on the pitch yesterday (just 31 minutes, and despite that being the middle forward on the pitch with the most metres, from either tean).  So, I thought I would have a look at how the interchanges played out.  I don't think we had any injuries to contest with and so these were tactical interchanges.

 

Interchange 1 (19th minute):  Cooper on Burgess off

Interchange 2 (26th minute): Thompson on Hill off

These are pretty standard middle interchanges

Interchange 3 (33rd minute): Knowles on Radley off

So, this one is strange for me.  I thought it was clear that McIlorum was struggling in the last 10 minutes of the first half - I would have expected Knowles to come on for McIlorum and Radley to shift to 9 and chance to really up our intesity.

From this point, England played through to the 53rd minute with the same 13 on the pitch.

Interchange 4 (53rd minute): Radley on Thompson off

Interchange 5 (59th minute): Hill on McIlorum off

So, this is a chance to give McIlorum a break at almost the 60 minute mark.  I am surprised that Hill was the first middle back on with Burgess only doing 19 minutes at the start.

Interchange 6 (60th minute):  McMeeken on Watkins off

Was this a tactical change or was Watkins struggling?

Interchange 7 (68th minute):  Burgess on Cooper off

Burgess finally back on the pitch

Interchange 8 (70th minute): McIlorum on Knowles off

McIlorum back after an 11 minute break

 

So, the upshot of all this is that McIlorum had to play 69 minutes despite clearly struggling with the pace of the game and Radley doing 60 minutes.  I would have offered McIlorum a longer spell than just 11 minutes.

Cooper and Hill played the longest minutes for middle forwards (49 and 46 minutes) while Tom Burgess only 31 minutes.  He averaged 44 minutes in the NRL this year and so can clearly do more and England were a lot better when he was on the pitch.

I'm not one who dislikes Wane blindly, despite my club rivalries, but I dont think he did brilliantly tactically yesterday, or selection-wise, and as you highlight, the interchange looks a bit off. 

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, Tippytoe said:

What am I going to do? Is this a stock question Eh? 

You could just answer it?

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Thats your prerogative but I cannot for the life of me see how as a Rugby League fan England winning or losing would make me stop following the sport.

Oh I see, this is the first time it's happened, a blip if you will. 

My mistake. 

[Tippytoe]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not one who dislikes Wane blindly, despite my club rivalries, but I dont think he did brilliantly tactically yesterday, or selection-wise, and as you highlight, the interchange looks a bit off. 

I say old chap your interchange tactics were a bit off yesterday never mind let's have a ginger beer and some cucumber sandwiches oh and here's 50grand keep up the spiffing work. Is that how you go about it? DaveT.

[Tippytoe]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

You could just answer it?

What do you mean what am I going to do?