New Zealand : Locke; Beale, Brown, Mannering, Nightingale; Marshall, Foran; Matulino, Leuluai, Packer, Manu, Blair, Smith.

Replacements : Taylor for Locke (11), Glenn for Matulino (16), Waerea-Hargreaves for Packer (1icon_cool.gif, Luke for Leuluai (32).


Oh yeh, full of mugs that is!!!

I agree. But the player you allude to chose otherwise.

Did he choose otherwise before or after being snubbed by the current England coach?

I think it is just the contrary nature of RL fans and the semi-on being nursed by some in the RL media that Danny Brough is now the saviour of international RL.

Had Brough been appointed as the England half-back a year ago, I think his performances at the back end of the year and in big games throughout his career would have resulted in a campaign to see Sinfield back in the fold.

Brough was godawful at the back end of last year, besides hull rolling over and having their tummies tickled Brough was the worst half back on the field in the games against Wire and Wigan, he was outshone in both by Robinson.

Perhaps under Brough's leadership we could have topped the qualifying group by a fair old margin. Then crashed quickly out of the playoff section. Then seen our fans complain we were the true champions really.

England's chances (such as they are) would IMO have been improved had Cooper Cronk's heritage been thoroughly investigated and the player persuaded to be English. Just as irrayional as discussing the "decided to be Scottish" Man of Steel in the context of England's team but there you go.

England's chances (such as they are) would not IMO have been improved one iota by including a player who has never shown the mettle to perform in the biggest of games and has shown such little character that he goes from Scottish to English to Scottish again when he thinks his selection is unlikely to be handed on a plate to him several months before the tournament began.

Englands chances (such as they are) are better improved by selecting natural leaders who display some of the finest attributes a player can possess, a player that inspires team mates, rather than riles them.

Englands chances (such as they are) are better served with the qualities a certain captain brings to the table, qualities his predecessor as captain praised in such a fullsome manner during the BBC coverage that he almost said anyone doubting him was a fool. His predecessor knows a thing or two about playing the Aussies and Kiwis, unlike the current Man of Steel.

The current Man of Steel is about to find out what it's like to face the kiwis. He's about to play in a big game. Unlike when his team is putting 60 on the likes of Salford he won't be behind the bigger of the two packs. I've always said I would judge the current man of steel on his playoff performances as his seasons form would regularly nosedive. Another playoff series of underwhelming mediocrity denied us again seeing Brough peroform on the big occassion, despite playing for the season's most dominant team (in itself enlightening).

Now he will get his chance for his chosen nation. Now we will see.

Why not find a place for Brough, Chase and Sinfield - bit if radical thinking, or not!!

Difficult to argue with any of this , most will probably agree , I should think .

This made me smile though ,


Englands chances (such as they are) are better served with the qualities a certain captain brings to the table, qualities his predecessor as captain praised in such a fullsome manner during the BBC coverage that he almost said anyone doubting him was a fool. His predecessor knows a thing or two about playing the Aussies and Kiwis, unlike the current Man of Steel

A line of argument that predecessors know far more about the qualities a certain player may bring to a team .

Yet an argument that excludes a certain player at Leeds , even though the present back to back Grand final winning coach and his predecessors saw fit to include him regularly in their successful teams , Hmm....

Mainly because Brough is Scottish.

How can anyone be serious about selecting a player whose response to not being selected wasn't to play his nuts in the hope of a belated call up but instead preferred to lower his standards and expectations? At the time I wasn't certain that Macnamara's choice was a wise one; Brough's response has convinced me it was.

I'm sure when the Scots get pasted on friday night it will be the "Teams" fault but not McBroughs as he sh##ts trophies and all his farts are winners medals.
On the flip side when the England team eventually lose out during this WC it will be Mcnamaras and Sinfileds fault because all the others involved will have been world class only to be let down by a poor Skipper & clueless Coach!!
Zzzzzzzzz..

Before Brough opted to play for Scotland McNamarra had a chance to select him.

I fell sleep half way through this paranoia driven rant!!

He selected somebody else. Our man of steel duly had a hissy fit and rediscovered his Scottish patriotism. Because he's a fighter like that.

Yet stayed awake long enough to reply with the usual BS you post when stalking me!

IIRC the line at the time was that one McCoach had the first option to select him but didn't (despite Brough outplaying his opponents more or less on a weekly basis during 2013) which alerted the other McCoach to inquire if Brough would be available for Scotland instead.

RL World Cups tend not to come around that often or on a reliable schedule and I'm not surprised when players take any chance open to play in them. Only surprised that with a highly competitive group of forwards and finally a few potentially exciting backs that one of the very few talented English born and bred half-backs could be overlooked in a World Cup year.

I suspect that the England coach might have had some issues with the player which were not directly linked to his playing abilities

There have been plenty of comparatively slow half-backs in Test history (not sure I'd place Darren Lockyer among them) but any comparison between Wally Lewis and Kevin Sinfield as test stand-offs should probably end about there.



And in your opinion Wigan massively downgraded when they replaced Leuluai and Finch with Smith and Green but that didn't appear to stop the Cherry and Whites improving to do the double in 2013 with the inferior players collection the individual MOTM accolades in the respective finals.

Danny Brough has so far led his second level Scotland to a win against Tonga and the USA while also taking a point off Italy - which is more than can be said for McNamara's England led by Sinfield during the WC warm-up game at Salford, in a game where McNamara somewhat ironically bemoaned 'I just think our mentality was really wrong for this game.'



It's highly unlikely to affect the result given Scotland's second level status while playing the reigning World champions but I'll still expect to see Brough take on and offer a running threat to the Kiwi's defensive line which will be sadly absent the following week from Sinfield if England meet New Zealand in the semi-final.

That's fair comment. I can appreciate that Brough was faced with a difficult choice. It doesn't change the fact that the decision he made was effectively to abandon the England cause.

Except, of course, you know, those weeks when it mattered, like the playoffs and the cup, just as has always been the case.

Brough IMO outplayed Sinfield on every occasion they faced each other in 2013 - including a game that should matter a great deal to both in the Challenge Cup.

8th March 2013 - Leeds 8 - 32 Huddersfield (Sinfield and Brough at stand-off)

11th May 2013 - Huddersfield 24 - 8 Leeds (Brough and Sinfield at stand-off)

The away game at Huddersfield in June Sinfield missed with a damaged thumb but again Leeds couldn't contain Brough who engineered the 40 - 18 Huddersfield win.

So to summarise:

The comparative ability of one individual player versus another can be defined solely by the results of their teams. Ergo, Ian Kirke is better than Tony Puletua.

The comparative merits of one poster's opinions versus another can be defined by how well they did in a prediction competition on an internet messageboard.

The world according to tvoc.

You said Brough outplayed his "opponents" more or less "on a weekly basis". I pointed out that he didn't do so in the games that mattered.

Why are you now just referring to two specific games and one specific opponent?

That, in my reading, amounts to the player telling the coach "you have the chance to select me. But if you don't pick me next time, no more second chances." Players shouldn't (in my opinion) be giving international coaches "first refusal" on their services. Do you think that's OK?

Brough's response to not getting picked mid-season should have been to roll his sleeves up and play his way into the team. He did subsequently play well enough to make his point, and made himself almost impossible not to pick. Sadly he had already chosen to make his point in another way and withdraw his services.

That, in my opinion, is not the sortt of player you want in the trenches with you in a World Cup, as much as in pure playing ability terms he would have been the strongest option.

The key point is that he was overlooked in world cup year, but not for the world cup. He took himself out of that equation. Which makes the point about whether we'd be a stronger team if he played a moot one doesn't it?

How is this even a discussion?

Both are players of immense talent and vision, both have great kicking games and one has a bit more pace than the other, but not so much pace that it should be considered a huge asset. The guy lacking pace, however, has ten years of being the best captain and on field organiser in the league, a proven leader of men, excellent decision maker and better when the chips are down than just about any other player these isles have to offer.

So who do you really want leading England around the park at a World Cup? The guy who's a bit faster and a bit more flashy, but has ultimately failed to rise to the big occasion throughout his generally inconsistent career or one of the most consistent players SL has seen and the coolest head in the business?

Sinfield is controlling this team in a way I simply don't believe Brough is capable of, he has their respect in a way I don't think Brough could have, and if you genuinely believe that lacking a little bit of pace is more important than the multitude of things that Sinfield brings to this team then you either have an agenda or a lack of understanding.