: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:32 pm  

Tony Smith picked more or less the best set of players he had available to him,
the problems lie a lot deeper than his team selection,
Most of the chosen players are in the comfort zone because a lot of them know that there is not enough emerging players coming through to challenge them,
An example is Ben Westwood,
i'm not picking on him as there is a lot more like him.
hes a decent enough player but not England world cup standard
Theres non or very few potential new Scullys, Farrells or Edwards on the horizon.
The game needs promoting a lot more at youth levels with more teams being formed and young kids given the incentives to play the game,
Look at how many teams were around in the 80s in Hull compared to now,
i reckon 90% have disappeared and the few clubs that are left often have trouble with getting a full squad and even being able to put 13 kids out on a Sunday.

: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:49 pm  

muddyboots wrote:

Tony Smith picked more or less the best set of players he had available to him,
the problems lie a lot deeper than his team selection,
Most of the chosen players are in the comfort zone because a lot of them know that there is not enough emerging players coming through to challenge them,
An example is Ben Westwood,
i'm not picking on him as there is a lot more like him.
hes a decent enough player but not England world cup standard
Theres non or very few potential new Scullys, Farrells or Edwards on the horizon.
The game needs promoting a lot more at youth levels with more teams being formed and young kids given the incentives to play the game,
Look at how many teams were around in the 80s in Hull compared to now,
i reckon 90% have disappeared and the few clubs that are left often have trouble with getting a full squad and even being able to put 13 kids out on a Sunday.

Could'nt agree more

: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:38 am  

Too many handling errors cost us on Saturday, we should and could have won the game.

Wellens, Gardner and Wilkin were awful and should not play International rugby again.

: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:01 pm  

You are deluding yourself that we could have won the game. What you have is an overhyped so called Super League and this bunch stand out in what is a very limited competition. The Aussies and the Kiwis are fitter faster,play better football and have turned us into an international joke. The press have laughed at the format and our performance. As I said before, I have no doubt as soon as the new SL season starts it will all be forgotton but I for one can see throught the crap and see how far the game is falling behind. I repeat, without a credible International game it could wither and die!! Get money away from the bloated debt ridden so called top clubs and put more into the grass roots and do it NOW!

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:26 am  

Can't disagree with any of thisAnd we are complicit by giving players like Byrne and Cusack employment.

Can't disagree with any of thisAnd we are complicit by giving players like Byrne and Cusack employment.

[R.B.A]

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:32 am  

PAUL M wrote:

Too many handling errors cost us on Saturday, we should and could have won the game.

Wellens, Gardner and Wilkin were awful and should not play International rugby again.

The "aura" surrounding several Saints players has been shot to pieces in this World Cup. Will be interesting to see how they bounce back next season. There for the taking i reckon.

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:34 am  

R.B.A wrote:

The "aura" surrounding several Saints players has been shot to pieces in this World Cup. Will be interesting to see how they bounce back next season. There for the taking i reckon.

Combine that with Potter and a few players looking anxiously towards the end of their pro careers you may well be right.

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:45 am  

I also believe the interpretations of the rules have a big impact. SL encourages quick PTB’s, too quick IMO and whilst the game appears exciting it often has no structure whatsoever. The NRL on the other hand allow the defense a lot more time in the ruck, which subsequently enables the defensive line to re-group for each tackle. Without the privilege of playing behind a pack on the roll Englands creativity was awful. The likes of Burrow, Pryce, Mcguire, etc. are all fantastic broken field runners but appear clueless when faced with a solid defensive line. Australia on the other hand have an intelligent hooker, creative halves and willing runners – England have none of these. It might sound a bit negative but for us to compete on the international stage we need to slow down the ruck and force attacking teams to be more creative.

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:47 am  

Banger wrote:

I also believe the interpretations of the rules have a big impact. SL encourages quick PTB’s, too quick IMO and whilst the game appears exciting it often has no structure whatsoever. The NRL on the other hand allow the defense a lot more time in the ruck, which subsequently enables the defensive line to re-group for each tackle. Without the privilege of playing behind a pack on the roll Englands creativity was awful. The likes of Burrow, Pryce, Mcguire, etc. are all fantastic broken field runners but appear clueless when faced with a solid defensive line. Australia on the other hand have an intelligent hooker, creative halves and willing runners – England have none of these. It might sound a bit negative but for us to compete on the international stage we need to slow down the ruck and force attacking teams to be more creative.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree that one or the other interpretation is correct I do agree that the fact there is a difference causes a lot of problems, the standard of international RL refereeing is a concern, not so much as the decisions made, but the interpretation of the rules.

Had we played NZ with Ganson in the middle we may well have had a different result, that is just plain wrong.

: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:51 pm  

Banger wrote:

I also believe the interpretations of the rules have a big impact. SL encourages quick PTB’s, too quick IMO and whilst the game appears exciting it often has no structure whatsoever. The NRL on the other hand allow the defense a lot more time in the ruck, which subsequently enables the defensive line to re-group for each tackle. Without the privilege of playing behind a pack on the roll Englands creativity was awful. The likes of Burrow, Pryce, Mcguire, etc. are all fantastic broken field runners but appear clueless when faced with a solid defensive line. Australia on the other hand have an intelligent hooker, creative halves and willing runners – England have none of these. It might sound a bit negative but for us to compete on the international stage we need to slow down the ruck and force attacking teams to be more creative.

They cant do anything without the right runners. We cant open teams up because we dont have the runners hitting the right angles. SL is based on quick PTB so we dont have to work on having 3 or 4 runners in motion and picking the right pass and throwing it accurately and at the right moment. The Aussie half backs would struggle in the England team because the players dont give the options.