Fair question.

I'd go with DHM's suggestion of binning the lot of them and bringing in people who are at least committed to the cause and have some sense of what it should mean to represent your country in a World Cup.

I refuse to select any of my 11 year olds for competitive tournaments if they have been on the pop all Saturday night.
I caught the buggers all hiding in our team tent scoffing chocolate cake just before our festival plate final a couple of weeks ago and I was not happy. I couldn't axe all of them so I told them they could only finish the cake if they won.
They won.

Winning cake tastes better than losing cake.

Mmm, I like winning flavour.

I bet Gareth Hock doesn't even like cake. It's a scandal.

Me, I love cake.

What were we talking about?

Exactly. On the relatively successful '92 tour the players imposed their own alcohol ban. Mind you, I did see them all on the p[ii[/iss around Sydney harbour shortly after announcing this.

What people seem to forget is 18 players did impose their own alcohol ban. 6 went for a few drinks and by all accounts 5 of them kept it light and were responsible enough to not get leathered. They got home, got to bed, got to camp, got to training.

1 idiot didn’t.

I have no problem with a player having a beer or two a week before the game. There is an obvious problem with 1 player who couldn’t keep it together. But its unfair to focus on him and think of him as representative of the squad when he is an isolated incident.

On a more positive note, there's a superb article by Jamie Peacock on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24475643

On a more positive note, there's a superb article by Jamie Peacock on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24475643

Spot on.We are talking about a 30 year bloke not being able to get himself out of bed at a civilised time in the morning FFS!

I do have a problem with people going out for a drink in the run up to a big tournament.
The affects of alcohol on training up to 48 hours after consumption are well known and documented. Although not rocket scientists the players should know this too. The medical staff will be able to explain to them if needed. In order to make an impact every player needs to be at 100%. Hocks refusal to understand that its just missing a couple of 10 minute sessions shows he does not have the right mental attitude to be involved at the tournament. THere are thousands of blokes who would swap position with him, and would give up alcohol for a few weeks in order to achieve something great. Unfortunately, not for the first time, Hock has shown he can't handle temptation and focus on the long term goal

I think that would be fine if there wasn't (as seems to have been the case) a [uspecific[/u instruction from the management about not drinking until after Saturday. I have no problem with the odd beer (I don't think isolating people in a confined camp, however luxurious, a la England Soccerball in 2010 is a great idea) during a tournament, but they were specifically told not to, and went and did it anyway. Which disrespects the coaching staff and the rest of the squad who managed to do as they were told.

Sort of depends how much alcohol we're talking about. If they had a couple of beers they wouldn't notice any effect in training.

A skinful on the other hand... I have not very fond memories of going out on a Friday night lash a few years ago, and doing a 10k race for my club on Sunday morning. I felt fine. Top gear was, simply put, not there. I did OK, but it probably cost me a minute to 90 seconds. The sort of small margin that counts in elite level sport. If you're a few % off your game against the Aussies, that will add up to a lot of points over 80 minutes.

and if they were 48hrs before the game i would agree. But they were an entire week away from a game.

The effects of alcohol consumption are well known, but it is also dependant on how much alcohol is consumed and this is my problem with it. Because Hock was a moron and had too many, overslept and missed training we assume that everyone else was out getting leathered aswell.

It is more likely that for the ‘others’ going out consisted of 2 maybe 3 pints, a figure which a week before a game isn’t going to make any difference. Because Hock couldn’t keep a lid on it and has tried to bring his team-mates down with him they are all of a sudden out on the town doing shots of sambucca and downing pints until sunrise. In fact even from Hocks description some of those 6’s transgressions could have gone no further than a glass of wine with dinner.

I mostly agree, but from what I know (which is limited I admit) even a small amount of alcohol has an impact on performance, even if only very small. To play at our best, we have to train at our best. And that means no alcohol. Its selfish to let the rest of his team mates down. The same applies to the others

Not sure that's true. Alcohol doesn't really trigger toxin responses at very low levels. Some people will even tell you, for example, that a pint of wheat beer is a good recovery drink (it out-performed lucozade in a test somewhere, though I am dubious about the methods). When you exceed a blood concentration that triggers your body to treat it as a toxin, then you start to see some effect. One of the principal problems is dehydration. Again, that doesn't really take effect until that toxic response is triggered, at which point your body's first response is to flush the stuff out through your renal system.

Everybody triggers that response at different points too, so it isn't easy to specify a number of units. But I don't believe most people would see any adverse reaction to a pint of decent beer or cider or a glass of wine in an evening, for instance. Rubbishy plastic mass-produced beer also contains other additives which are not suggested for an athlete's diet, which is a separate issue.

I'm splitting hairs though, as I agree it was selfish, they breached a direct instruction and showed a lack of respect and self discipline.

Quote ="craigizzard"On a more positive note, there's a superb article by Jamie Peacock on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24475643'" Great column. Sent shivers down my spine at the end

Quote ="craigizzard"On a more positive note, there's a superb article by Jamie Peacock on the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24475643'" Great column. Sent shivers down my spine at the end

Unless I am missing something there is no evidence that the others only had one or two, only that they didn't sleep in. I dare say most on here could go out, have 5 or 6 & still get up for breakfast. I don't think they would all perform to 100% of their abilities however.

From an outsiders point of view your posts have been a riveting entertaining read , not so much fun when it's your own mob implicated.

Do people think that had England convincingly won over Italy........were Mcnamara a more respected coach by fans......that the management would have had wider support for sacking players after a slosh up ?

You've got some very good talent in reserve if Tom Burgess didn't make the top side first up , I rate the brothers highly.

England could pull out the feel good story of Three Burgess , and reap the reward in real terms of them firing off each other in the England Shirt ?

If nothing else it would be a positive morsel to distract the media dogs with.

They wouldn't let you down either.

Pleased to see big George in there , you have to counter the dump trucks NZ and Aus use off their benches.

but similarly we have no evidence that they had a skinful either. Fact is without Hock's idiocy they would have been given the benefit of the doubt. I think its unfair on the others that Hock's behaviour means that benefit of doubt is removed.

I wonder who Hocks roommate was? Surely he should have given him a kick to get him out of bed and down to training. If it were me (as either Hock or the roommate) I would have expected it.

Me too. I'm lacing my boots up as we speak.

Is that a euphemism?

Quote ="Mt Smart" England could pull out the feel good story of Three Burgess , and reap the reward in real terms of them firing off each other in the England Shirt ? If nothing else it would be a positive morsel to distract the media dogs with. They wouldn't let you down either. Pleased to see big George in there , you have to counter the dump trucks NZ and Aus use off their benches.'" Your wish is my command: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24650021 Not sure about describing SBW as a "New Zealand great" mind you. Tremendous player, but failure to pick something and stick to it holds hiom back from being "a great" in my book. Certainly it's hard to describe a guy who I don't think has won a Test for the Kiwis and has only played 7 times a "great." He may, of course, fix that over the next month. Then you can think about using the term.

Quote ="Mt Smart" England could pull out the feel good story of Three Burgess , and reap the reward in real terms of them firing off each other in the England Shirt ? If nothing else it would be a positive morsel to distract the media dogs with. They wouldn't let you down either. Pleased to see big George in there , you have to counter the dump trucks NZ and Aus use off their benches.'" Your wish is my command: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24650021 Not sure about describing SBW as a "New Zealand great" mind you. Tremendous player, but failure to pick something and stick to it holds hiom back from being "a great" in my book. Certainly it's hard to describe a guy who I don't think has won a Test for the Kiwis and has only played 7 times a "great." He may, of course, fix that over the next month. Then you can think about using the term.

I thought this too....but then i wondered if maybe the incident was compounded by the roommate being told to do one when he tried to shift him....after all it was "only a 10 minute swim" and medical check.

All about opinions I suppose, but unsure of your definition of great.

He is regarded as one of the worlds best Rugby League players, and rightly so, he has talents beyond many others. He went to Union, was again very highly rated, and won a world cup with his country. Took up boxing, and holds two titles currently and is unbeaten. He is one of New Zealands most popular individuals. He is from New Zealand.

My definition, he is from New Zealand, he has excelled at three different sports, and won honours in all three sports, two of the sports at National level. How many other individuals regarded as a great could match that? I would say he is definitely a New Zealand great, and would guess the media's defnition is probably following mine, and why they termed it that.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24650021 looks like graham,mcillorum and hardaker all picked injuries up last weekend and havn't been selected in the 19

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24650021 looks like graham,mcillorum and hardaker all picked injuries up last weekend and havn't been selected in the 19

I see your point. It reads to me as a description of him as a "Great" in the pantheon of NZ RL internationals. Looked at in other ways, he is a great sportsman.

Just for the record, I assume he boxes for fun, because while he is OK and makes use of his outrageous physical gifts against lower opponents, he is never in a million years going to be a world class boxer. So when he has "excelled" at 3 sports, keep in mind that his "excelling" in one of them is several levels below the other two. Even our very limited crop in this country have 3 or 4 heavyweights he would stand very little chance against. And I'm not even counting Anthony Joshua yet.