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.

Did Wheeler and Dean play in the semi final and grand final reserve games v Wigan?

Sinny has impressed me at hooker, is that the position for him at this level though? I'm not sure. He was very good yesterday IMO, but is he what we want from a 13 at International level? Again, I'm not convinced. I'd still be tempted to put an extra biffballer at 13 and let Tomkins have more responsibility.

Best post on this thread by a country mile but dont expect to get away with the Sinfield comment, he's the best 13 on the planet dont you know!!

I don't know if either or both of them did, to be honest. I don't tend to follow the reserves as it's a bit of a non-comp. But if they did play, the only reason they will have played is because there was no space in the first team. With Longy gone and Eastmond taking his place, Wheeler will see himself at centre again (with Sia coming in for Gilly). Dean will be cover for either wing I should imagine. But we have a clutch of young players all due to get some more first grade game time next season. I am sure some of them may go on that joint loan arrangement or simply loaned out or let go, as and when they prove themselves or otherwise.

The only point you raised that I would challenge (conveniently for RR) is about Sinfield as a loose forward. I suspect that you also saw the Leeds teams with Dave Heron at Loose and for me that's exactly what a LF should be cover defence, good hands, vision, engine, kicking game and can slot in to fill for almost any other member of the pack when they go MIA. Sinfield can do all of this.

The issue with him at LF in an International team, and particularly this one, is that we seem to want a biff and barge player, which he certainly is not. Therefore the issue is down to the structure you want from a LF, and that's hardly a point that can be levelled at the player himself (not that you were necessarily doing that).

Sinfield is very capable, but his strength is in his brain and hands, not his physical stature, and we should be using this to greater effect.

when our problem seems to be defending out wide, or at least getting the defence to slide a lot quicker/better. How would changing the loose forward to a big biff and barge player help?
if anything it'll slow the defence down even more and offer nothing more then an extra 2nd rower/prop in attack which we shouldn't need! (morley, peacock, ellis, burgess, crabtree, westwood, graham and co should be more then enough players to use as battering rams)

1 major thing that needs to be changed for mine, is someone needs to tell graham that he's a prop not a stand off. some of his passes at the line were shocking, not to mention that he wasn't even running at the line, then passing ie making defender move, and then passing into a gap. he was stood completely still for most of them, allowing the defence to bash the man receiving the ball (if he was lucky enough to have the pass actually go near him)

Dave Heron would be awesome today in a faster game, although in all likelihood he'd be a stand off - he was certainly quick enough.

A real problem that GB have had over the years is having loose forwards as key ball handlers. Unless you have a real crafty b*gger like a Harry Pinner, to be quite frank most loose forwards' handling is simply not sharp enough to break down a top defence. In addition, you generally lose a hardworking forward, and it seems to confuse rather than help the halfbacks. Australia and New Zealand don't have a loose forward with any ball handling responsibility - that's down to 6,7 and 9.

IMO Sinfield is unfortunate in that he's just not quick enough to be a stand off, and at international level is too lightweight for a loose forward. But he has a very good rugby brain, seems to have a calming effect on the players around him, and his passing game around the middle of the field is pretty good - as opposed to out wide where he just doesn't have the game to worry top threequarters IMO. That's why at international level I suspect he may be the best hooker we have. Roby is almost the opposite - his strength is his strength, as his distribution is poor. He and Sinfield swapping the roles they play for their clubs may work better for England.

Who's ever said that?

If you had half the rugby league knowledge of brisbane you might be taken more seriously Rodney.

Sinfield/Roby at Hooker and O'Loughlin at Loose could work well for England.

O'Loughlin no where near the team would work considerably better.

IMO he has played well for england in the past, who would your loose be?