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.

I'd imagine Australia's approach after securing the game had a fair bit to do with it rather than any defensive master plan instigated at half time.

You don't do yourself any favours.

Your opinions will always be treated as fekwitted after you were handed your ar5e by Mcclennan and his Leeds team this season.

Don't even bother replying, I'm not interested in any of your fekwit statements.

Interesting though that when Briscoe came off, Smith was shoved on the wing and Eastmond took Smith's place at centre. And the Aussie's didn't score again.

Has Eastmond played on the wing for Saints?

Whatever your [iopinion[/i the coach dealt with it tactically by removing Briscoe.

Of course, posters on here would obviously know more than Smith.

He's played wing, centre, 7 and fullback for Saints.

How many times has he played wing and how many times centre?

Oh, now you've got me because we had so many injuries at one point that our young guys were playing all over the place. I think - but don't take this as gospel - he has played at wing twice and centre at least three occasions. He played centre in the Grand Final and scored all our points.

How many times has Eastmond played right centre at St Helens?

With Gidley there not that often I'd have thought.



Yes that's correct. My opinion is that Australia opted not to overly exert themselves in the second half when it wasn't neccessary.

That helped England get into the game together with a generous piece of 'home rule' officiating.

Why did it take Smith until half time to sort the problem?

He hasn't. Wheeler covered for Gidley when he was out, if memory serves.

Eastmond played his stints at left centre only towards the very end of the season when both Wheeler and Dean were out injured but Longy was back.

Dropped to the reserves.

Yes but what happened in the second half is not the point. The point is at half time the coach considered that Briscoe was the problem with the right hand side defence. That was the change he made.

What the reasons were that led to the success of that change are open to debate but what isn't is that the national coach thought that Briscoe was the change that needed making.

I've no idea.

Wrong.

Wheeler had a leg muscle tear, which began life as a strain but he came back too soon and it tore. Dean is a back up player.

The right hand side defence was shambolic but not entirely down to the individuals out there at the time. Briscoe didn't defend very well and Smith won't be a centre if he plays for a hundred years, but the core problem - yet again - was the lack of any kind of forward support in the defensive line.

Australia move the ball right. Tackle. England's entire pack muster on one half of the field. AUstralia ping the ball left at speed and oops they have an overlap, acres of space and two of the best broken-play runners you'll ever see. Result - England's right side defenders look worse than they actually are, and Australia score. Five times. In one half.

Smith IMO made a good fist of fixing this issue in the second half, but England still look vulnerable any time the ball is moved wide.

FWIW I take my hat off to Sinfield - I think he should be starting hooker. There is no way he should be played as a loose forward at that level.