Wigan literally have a conveyor belt of youngsters, I think leneghan sees the opporunity to cash in because he knows they'll be another youngster to come in, on less wages, and a transfer fee in their pockets.

Tonks and Baldwinson?

Must've have missed when they were first teamers.

Path blocked by 30+ year olds.

Or not physically ready at the age of just barely 18 to be regulars in the forwards.

You on about your young promising FB's and that 32 year old Gladstone Small you've currently got playing there who sounds like he'll be there in 2015 too?

As opposed to NZ warriors where they have a clear run to the first team



The reality is it was 2 raw youngsters who made a handful of first team appearences.

The fact you compare losing them to the likes of the tomkins brothers once again damages your credibility, but then you've always had a strong agenda regarding leeds youth system on here.

Aye, but you can bet your last pound as soon as McIlorum leaves he'll suddenly become a gobshiite in their eyes. Blinkered ain't in it!

Nah they still think Hock's an angel

Can someone bring me up to speed, is Rogues a troll or real?

Real, but fighting a losing battle on a few fronts this time.

usually pretty decent bloke but making himself look silly on this

This was also something put forward on the Saints board but I'd be surprised if the national side had a half who wasn't at least playing there on a regular basis, especially as we have Widdop currently waiting in the wings plus some good young halves coming through once Sinfield does hang up his boots. I also think he'd be more tempted to play Tomkins in the halves and Hardaker at FB if that's the route he did decide to go down, given that he's played him there in the past albeit against lesser opposition. I still find it difficult to imagine that given Brough, a dedicated half, couldn't make the squad last time round that McNamara would suddenly see a fullback as a better option. Having said that, stranger things have happened when it comes to the national side!



On the (somewhat daft) 'who's the niggliest player' that this thread seems to have descended into: Both teams have niggly players. For Mickey Mac and Bateman, read McGuire and Bailey. For Sean O'Loughlin read Carl Ablett. I could go on but the simple fact is ALL good teams have niggly players. In fact they're part of the make up of a good team and I'd challenge anyone to name me a successful team of angels! Wigan fans will think the Leeds players are the worst, Leeds fans that Wigan's are. In truth they're both as bad (or good) as each other and pointing to individual instances and examples to 'prove the point' is just ridiculous. Playing at the margins is what differentiates the winners from the losers. Funnily enough, the Saints fans are bemoaning the fact that they DON'T have enough mongrel and that it will, in all probability, cost an otherwise talented team the chance of silverware. What's more they are right to think that way. I can't, in all honesty, remember a team that [uever[/u won anything without that type of player in it. Peacock is the best prop in recent memory in my book. Anyone suggesting he doesn't have a nasty streak though needs to open their eyes! I'd go so far as to say he wouldn't be the player he is if he didn't have. You could say the same for practically every player who's ever excelled at this sport (and many other sports come to that). Embrace the niggle both in your team and in others. Without it the game wouldn't be the one we all love and support!

FYI, Brough didn't make the squad because he's a dummy spitting crybaby.

Maybe so, but it's never stopped anyone in the past!

He was the form half last season and, given he won MOS, must be reasonably popular with other players. In either case the point remains...

Name them



Other players thinking he played good and him spitting his dummy out if he couldn't be guaranteed a starting spot are so completely different.

He's real and very knowledgeable , but bang out of order what he has said about Danny McGuire .With that statement he became an archetypal Wigan fan we all know.I can enjoy a lot of his stuff , but his "excuse for a human being" remark was wrong.

Jason Robinson?

"Imagine the scene. A rugby player dropped from a major cup final wreaks his revenge by smashing up the changing room with a lump hammer. "I started to smash it against the walls," he says. "All the frustration and anger I felt was driving the hammer into the masonry with demented strength. I was mad and getting madder with each strike." That player was Jason Robinson, who resorted to violence after being forced to miss Wigan's 26-16 win over Leeds in rugby league's Challenge Cup final in 1994. The extraordinary episode is revealed in Robinson's autobiography "Finding My Feet", a warts-and-all... "

Well Sean Long notoriously spat his dummy and got sent home from one tour. I know this board had many a pop at James Graham when he was at Saints for being a dummy spitter and he's played many times for the national side and continues to do so. I could go on but I don't want the thread derailed by people arguing who is and who isn't but suffice to say that if you think everyone who plays for the national side is a paragon of virtue then you're very naïve. What's more, there are far worse things that are overlooked to accommodate a player if the coach thinks they are the man for the job on the field! I'd be interested in your definition of a 'dummy spitter' and why you think that would preclude them from selection. Has there been some particular incident between Brough and McNamara that the rest of us aren't privy to for example?

As for MOS; you seem to be presenting rugby players as more virtuous than the rest of us. If we don't like someone we are less inclined to bestow honour on them. Just take your own reaction to the suggestion that Brough was an option for the national side or the general resistance to accepting Micky Mac as a good player on this board for proof of that. The bottom line is Brough was the form half last season and MM has performed at the highest level, been picked for England ahead of players most on this board would say are better and been acclaimed by pundits on both sides of the world! Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary this board consistently says he's a poor player or nothing but a thug etc. Why? because the people saying that don't like him. Simple as that. I'm not saying [usome[/u players wouldn't be able to overlook their dislike (if indeed they did dislike Brough in the first place) but enough to win MOS ahead of great and universally liked players such as Peacock and O'Loughlin? I very much doubt it!

Don't think personally it's the "dummy spitting" in isolation that's the issue. Graham was a bit of a dummy spitter but it just came across as frustration and wanting to win. It's very difficult to try and explain in writing but brough comes across more like a baby and if he doesn't get his own way the bat and ball go home. Compare to hardaker who had a mare at the World Cup. Gone away and come back stronger and determined. I don't know but brough it strikes me had the same happened to him as hardaker he would still be sulking about.

Regarding MM. Always liked him as a player. Strikes me as an ablett sort of player in that he is underated by other fans who don't appreciate what they do. For me he is tough as teak but does have a cheap shot streak in him. For me if he could control the cheap shots without losing his aggression he would improve. It's good to have a little niggle
In your team but I think MM goes too far sometimes.

That's probably the fairest assessment of MM I've read from an opposition fan.

Quote ="Phuzzy"Well Sean Long notoriously spat his dummy and got sent home from one tour. I know this board had many a pop at James Graham when he was at Saints for being a dummy spitter and he's played many times for the national side and continues to do so. I could go on but I don't want the thread derailed by people arguing who is and who isn't but suffice to say that if you think everyone who plays for the national side is a paragon of virtue then you're very naïve. What's more, there are far worse things that are overlooked to accommodate a player if the coach thinks they are the man for the job on the field! I'd be interested in your definition of a 'dummy spitter' and why you think that would preclude them from selection. Has there been some particular incident between Brough and McNamara that the rest of us aren't privy to for example? As for MOS; you seem to be presenting rugby players as more virtuous than the rest of us. If we don't like someone we are less inclined to bestow honour on them. Just take your own reaction to the suggestion that Brough was an option for the national side or the general resistance to accepting Micky Mac as a good player on this board for proof of that. The bottom line is Brough was the form half last season and MM has performed at the highest level, been picked for England ahead of players most on this board would say are better and been acclaimed by pundits on both sides of the world! Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary this board consistently says he's a poor player or nothing but a thug etc. Why? because the people saying that don't like him. Simple as that. I'm not saying [usome[/u players wouldn't be able to overlook their dislike (if indeed they did dislike Brough in the first place) but enough to win MOS ahead of great and universally liked players such as Peacock and O'Loughlin? I very much doubt it!'" Well it was in reference to international selection so neither the James Graham or the previous example of Jason Robinson really applies here. As for Sean Long he never played for England/GB again. As for Brough's dummy spit it was more in reference to his episode when he decided he wouldn't stick around and chance not being selected for England. The week following his post match interview where he said he wasn't going to play for England in the WC (roughly end of May 2013), the Scotland coach came out and admitted that he and Brough had been in contact for over a year (so AT LEAST May 2012, 18 months before the WC). www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22812414 Clearly for a long period he was keeping his options open and went for the easy choice instead of the gamble, then placed the blame on McNamara for his treatment even though he'd been in a lot of prolonged contact with another national coach. The kind of guy to build your squad around? Hardly. At least he could've just come out and said he didn't want to run the risk of not playing in a WC.....but he didn't, he went for the "boo, hiss, McNamara's fault" approach. Dummy spitter indeed.

Quote ="Phuzzy"Well Sean Long notoriously spat his dummy and got sent home from one tour. I know this board had many a pop at James Graham when he was at Saints for being a dummy spitter and he's played many times for the national side and continues to do so. I could go on but I don't want the thread derailed by people arguing who is and who isn't but suffice to say that if you think everyone who plays for the national side is a paragon of virtue then you're very naïve. What's more, there are far worse things that are overlooked to accommodate a player if the coach thinks they are the man for the job on the field! I'd be interested in your definition of a 'dummy spitter' and why you think that would preclude them from selection. Has there been some particular incident between Brough and McNamara that the rest of us aren't privy to for example? As for MOS; you seem to be presenting rugby players as more virtuous than the rest of us. If we don't like someone we are less inclined to bestow honour on them. Just take your own reaction to the suggestion that Brough was an option for the national side or the general resistance to accepting Micky Mac as a good player on this board for proof of that. The bottom line is Brough was the form half last season and MM has performed at the highest level, been picked for England ahead of players most on this board would say are better and been acclaimed by pundits on both sides of the world! Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary this board consistently says he's a poor player or nothing but a thug etc. Why? because the people saying that don't like him. Simple as that. I'm not saying [usome[/u players wouldn't be able to overlook their dislike (if indeed they did dislike Brough in the first place) but enough to win MOS ahead of great and universally liked players such as Peacock and O'Loughlin? I very much doubt it!'" Well it was in reference to international selection so neither the James Graham or the previous example of Jason Robinson really applies here. As for Sean Long he never played for England/GB again. As for Brough's dummy spit it was more in reference to his episode when he decided he wouldn't stick around and chance not being selected for England. The week following his post match interview where he said he wasn't going to play for England in the WC (roughly end of May 2013), the Scotland coach came out and admitted that he and Brough had been in contact for over a year (so AT LEAST May 2012, 18 months before the WC). www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22812414 Clearly for a long period he was keeping his options open and went for the easy choice instead of the gamble, then placed the blame on McNamara for his treatment even though he'd been in a lot of prolonged contact with another national coach. The kind of guy to build your squad around? Hardly. At least he could've just come out and said he didn't want to run the risk of not playing in a WC.....but he didn't, he went for the "boo, hiss, McNamara's fault" approach. Dummy spitter indeed.

Widdopp will be 6 for England if fit, hopefully for years to come. At present Sinfield is the incumbent halfback, but whilst he has said he wants to play on, it'll be up to McNamara to decide if he should start looking for a genuine halfback to acompany Widdopp. Purely on form, I'd go for Hardaker at 1 and Tomkins at 7, as I think we need our best players in the team, even if it means moving one or two around to get them in the team.

With Hardaker, Brough and Hock, its up to them to convince McNamara to select them IMO. I can really understand if the lads that let themselves down during the WC have to do a lot to persuade McNamara they mean business. That was shocking form from so-called professional sportsmen.

As for Brough, I'd think McNamara has less of an axe to frind, but the problem will be the same - you may get picked if you're willing to fight for a place, but there's no automatic spot. Brough has shown previously that he's too scared to fight for a place and would rather play for Scotland. I'd say the choice is probably still his.

Quote ="ThePrinter"Well it was in reference to international selection so neither the James Graham or the previous example of Jason Robinson really applies here. As for Sean Long he never played for England/GB again. As for Brough's dummy spit it was more in reference to his episode when he decided he wouldn't stick around and chance not being selected for England. The week following his post match interview where he said he wasn't going to play for England in the WC (roughly end of May 2013), the Scotland coach came out and admitted that he and Brough had been in contact for over a year (so AT LEAST May 2012, 18 months before the WC). www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22812414 Clearly for a long period he was keeping his options open and went for the easy choice instead of the gamble, then placed the blame on McNamara for his treatment even though he'd been in a lot of prolonged contact with another national coach. The kind of guy to build your squad around? Hardly. At least he could've just come out and said he didn't want to run the risk of not playing in a WC.....but he didn't, he went for the "boo, hiss, McNamara's fault" approach. Dummy spitter indeed.'" Look, I can't claim to know the ins and outs of what happened and I strongly suspect that neither can you. However I do know what you write above is an exceedingly coloured view of what happened. It's a matter of record that Brough wasn't picked for the WC squad, nor was he picked for the Exiles game. Furthermore, apart from one solitary game, he hadn't been picked for England previously. At 30 years old this was likely to be his last World cup and, by McNamara's own admission, didn't figure in his England plans. He did, however, have the chance to play for Scotland; a team he had been involved with for many years, even captaining them. Not surprisingly he chose to play for them. I would have done the same and, again, I guess you would have done too in a similar situation! How on earth do you conclude from that ''dummy spitter indeed'' except in an entirely biased assessment? He also, to my knowledge ever uttered words even approaching ''McNamara's fault'' (or ''boo, hiss for that matter!). IIRC he basically said he didn't want to spend any longer down the pecking order for England(or words to that effect) when he could be first choice for Scotland. Again, hardly an unreasonable view given his age etc. This was not some kid making his way in the game. If, even in a MOS winning season he was unable even to make the 20 man train on squad, I think it's fair to say that it didn't take a genius to work out he wasn't going to get his chance under Steve McNamara. Now don't get me wrong, I have no agenda either for or against Danny Brough. All I do know is that it proves the point I was making earlier. You have decided you don't like him and you view everything he does in the worst possible light even when, as in this case, there is a perfectly justifiable reason for what he did should you care to view it rationally. I think that's probably all there is to say on the subject really, don't you?

Quote ="ThePrinter"Well it was in reference to international selection so neither the James Graham or the previous example of Jason Robinson really applies here. As for Sean Long he never played for England/GB again. As for Brough's dummy spit it was more in reference to his episode when he decided he wouldn't stick around and chance not being selected for England. The week following his post match interview where he said he wasn't going to play for England in the WC (roughly end of May 2013), the Scotland coach came out and admitted that he and Brough had been in contact for over a year (so AT LEAST May 2012, 18 months before the WC). www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22812414 Clearly for a long period he was keeping his options open and went for the easy choice instead of the gamble, then placed the blame on McNamara for his treatment even though he'd been in a lot of prolonged contact with another national coach. The kind of guy to build your squad around? Hardly. At least he could've just come out and said he didn't want to run the risk of not playing in a WC.....but he didn't, he went for the "boo, hiss, McNamara's fault" approach. Dummy spitter indeed.'" Look, I can't claim to know the ins and outs of what happened and I strongly suspect that neither can you. However I do know what you write above is an exceedingly coloured view of what happened. It's a matter of record that Brough wasn't picked for the WC squad, nor was he picked for the Exiles game. Furthermore, apart from one solitary game, he hadn't been picked for England previously. At 30 years old this was likely to be his last World cup and, by McNamara's own admission, didn't figure in his England plans. He did, however, have the chance to play for Scotland; a team he had been involved with for many years, even captaining them. Not surprisingly he chose to play for them. I would have done the same and, again, I guess you would have done too in a similar situation! How on earth do you conclude from that ''dummy spitter indeed'' except in an entirely biased assessment? He also, to my knowledge ever uttered words even approaching ''McNamara's fault'' (or ''boo, hiss for that matter!). IIRC he basically said he didn't want to spend any longer down the pecking order for England(or words to that effect) when he could be first choice for Scotland. Again, hardly an unreasonable view given his age etc. This was not some kid making his way in the game. If, even in a MOS winning season he was unable even to make the 20 man train on squad, I think it's fair to say that it didn't take a genius to work out he wasn't going to get his chance under Steve McNamara. Now don't get me wrong, I have no agenda either for or against Danny Brough. All I do know is that it proves the point I was making earlier. You have decided you don't like him and you view everything he does in the worst possible light even when, as in this case, there is a perfectly justifiable reason for what he did should you care to view it rationally. I think that's probably all there is to say on the subject really, don't you?

I agree with much of this except that one dummy spitter is because he wants to win and the other is because he's a baby. Are you saying that Brough's frustration doesn't stem from the same desire to win or that Graham's is somehow more noble? Again I would point to your personal view of each player as the reason you see it this way. There is no other concrete reason to make this conclusion as far as I'm aware. Fair assessment of MM by the way!