I don't think sinfield at 6 would work at international level and I would leave mcguire at 6.

Mcguire seems to be the scapegoat for the Aussie game which is out of order. Fair enough he was poor but he wasn't the only 1.

IMO sinfield is just what we need at hooker like I've already said in few posts on here.

The Kumuls will be the other team in next yrs 4 nations..... www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 88,00.html

The Kumuls will be the other team in next yrs 4 nations..... www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 88,00.html

Well, if I am not mistaken, The Aussies didn't tear our right hand side defence to shreds when Briscoe came off.

I was going to argue that Smith is a centre and I was going to point out the season he had in that position culminating in a great Grand Final display from the centre. But you typed "end of" at the end of your sentence like all internet geniuses do so how could I argue?

Quote ="rhinoms"The Kumuls will be the other team in next yrs 4 nations..... www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 88,00.html'" Oh geez, now we won't even win a game next year.

Quote ="rhinoms"The Kumuls will be the other team in next yrs 4 nations..... www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 88,00.html'" Oh geez, now we won't even win a game next year.

I won't get into an argument with you, your opinion is your own.

Emma, quite simply Sinfield is not a 6, its a shocking call and TS knows it is tantamount to saying the English game is quite simply crap.

I would go with Sinfield and McGuire, with Tomkins on the bench. They both have experience and then Sinni can be used as utility to bring Tomkins on. Eastmond was ok as centre and TBH the centre positions worry me more than the half backs. McGuire had a poor game. He wasn't the only one yet the fekwits on here have made him the scapegoat. JP, Moz and Westwood haven't had half the stick McGuire has got.

You however have made yourself look ridiculous, (again). I dont know what your motive is, but even if it is intended as a troll, it is a poor attempt.

Sinfield should stay where he played in the second half as he really played well there. Tomkins should be on from the start as he was yesterday. He set up lots of play and worked his butt off defensively. Unfortunately we may have to put up with Mcguire because I don't think Myler is up to it (yet?) but if the rest of the team play as well as they did during the second half yesterday (preferably even better) then they can carry one dud, I'm sure.


Fat lot of good Mcguire's experience did him. He was useless. Tomkins and Eastmond, both on their debuts against Australia, showed him how to take it to the Kangaroos. Ideally, Mcguire should be dropped.

Tomkins was incredibly poor in the first half. Mcguire was the only half back on the pitch for 40 mins. Like I said, the fekwits have gone after McGuire. What about the other poor performers?

Emma, for goodness sake come on, McGuire was culpable for three tries, not helped by Sinfield jumping out of the line but nonetheless was absolutely shocking.

The biggest cheer of the game was when he was taken off!!

Tompkins on the other hand looked a direct threat despite being starved of the ball in the first 40 - TS should build the side round the kid and give Eastmond his straps, he was good when he came on and again showed that running direct instead of across the field is the way to go.

typo

Whats your point?

you just made it......

My prediction was real close, clearly I know more than anyone esle around here.

My dingaling, my dingaling, I want you to play with my dingaling...................

Same relevance as your post.

I might if it didnt take an hour to find it

bang on lass!

Like I said before, it was the fact that McGuire's poor performance went on for the full 80 which is the point. No-one else's poor performance leeched into the second half. McGuire just did not come up to standard by any measure whatsoever for the whole match and he really shouldn't be picked for the Kiwi game.

Thats what I said in the pub last night are you sure you wasn't ear wigging

I don't think the problem was with Briscoe, the gaps and busts appeared to be well inside where there was no effective right sided second row defending.

Australia, game in the bag, appeared to opt for a defensive half aided and abetted by the official.

That's because we were playing 4/4/4 - RHS 4 being wing, half, centre and loose and the right second row in the middle four.
There was clear miscommincation between all four on that right hand edge.

So inside to out Sinfield, Smith, McGuire and Briscoe?

How did they reorganise that side in the second half?

You see this is what happens when we make token gestures to clubs in the bottom half of the table.

Strangely, when BRiscoe was taken off the aussies didnt score again..

You are a know nowt fekwit.

All over the place - I lost track of the changes, but we had times with Sinfield in the middle group and times with him on the edge, and that right hand four were constantly changing and I'm not sure how much by design. It's remarkable that side of the defence survived with all the positional changes.
TBH, I think the problems were a couple of individual mistakes, but more so the middle group being pulled over too tight.

How very dare you........

And the fact you think that is the reason shows you to be worse than him!!









I would suggest the players thought fook the TS way, lets do it our way, hence a more open attack minded second half with off the cuff stuff that confused the hell out of the Aussies.

I think my mates view of TS is starting to look closer than the s on here, an arrogant, bully with limited talent.