We lost focus for a while and they took advantage and scored the try to put them 3 scores ahead, then we tried to get back into the game via a short kick off? At least 3, maybe 4 I cant remember now. If we had played it safe and settled for a 12-16 point loss by kicking long from the kick off we wouldnt have conceded at least 2 maybe 3 of those last few tries. Then the scorline looks a lot more respectable.


Yes and we put 20 on them in one half.
The game 2 weeks ago was a much better representation of how far ahead they are than the Final in my view.
They have huge strength in depth in nearly every position, their skill levels are higher, and they have much stronger mentality than us.
But that doesnt mean they are miles ahead and that we are awful
They are obviously better, but not by a huge amount just in a couple of vital areas that comes from having a more intense competition and having a state of origin series which is something we need.


Yep, its one of the things that annoys me intensely, because its something that is solved so easily, you simply practice more. It's something I was critical of Diskin for in previous years but he seems to have improved his passing from dummy half. It just slows down and almost nullifies our already slow attack.

For me the pattern followed that of many super league games, with a big team, and a smaller team.

Small team starts of very quick high tempo, maybe takes a lead, and its a close game for 60 mins.

Better team gets a try, and is 2 scores ahead, then suddenly the floodgates open.

I've seen leeds do that time and time again over the 12 years Ive been watching.

however, I have also seen times when the good start by the small team is rewarded with more than a 6 point lead, and it can quite quickly turn into a bad day at the office for the big team.

Had Burgess have set Tompkins free at 6-0, we could have had a giant killing on our hands.

The score is not the only reflection on the game we should look at.

Yep. If we could have got more than one score ahead with a bit more luck and some more favourable reffing at vital points we could have won.
It wouldn't change the fact they are still ahead of us, but may bring a bit more perspective to the arguments than simply the scoreline.

Exactly. For a SL parallel, see Salford or Quins at home.

It has been noted that Emma has not answered my questions yet!

That is because Emma is a very VERY busy person Ricky,
Which question....the one about the French.

England were very poor in the first half. That is no disrespect to France, just a fact. The second half they played well, yes, but I had a negative feeling after the match, seeing just how bad England can play.

So we're not that far behind and yet you're comparing the gap between England and Aus to that between Leeds and Salford? The gap both ways is immense - which is half of the problem in SL.

It is so obvious - pity some on here cannot believe what happens in front of their very eyes

Unreal - if absolutely everything had gone in our and the Aussies had failed to perform we might have got closer!!!

Reffing decisions - pity you didn't apply that logic to the second half of game one - Ganson penalised the Aussie to death

I agree. The performance even at 16-14 wasn't good hence why I posted this.



Meaning that had we fluked the win opinions on here would have been different. People would have failed to see that the performance was not great as it would have been glossed over by the win.

Agreed - for me there are bigger coaching issues in British sport - it appears we are coaching athletes with great speed and stamina who can run fast for a long time - we are not coaching the skills required to play the game at the really elite level.

Look at RU, Soccer and RL and our players lack the skill level you would expect from fulltime elite players.

Anyone who watches Leeds Utd must cringe at the inability of players to do the basics - how often are players incapable of kicking a corner over the first defender - and these issues are prevelant in PL too.

The difference in skill levels between the Aussies and us is significant - the difference they are also physically as fit and quick as us.

The less said about England RU the better - laughing stock would be an apt description

It's what happens when you have players spending the first 8-10 years of their playing lives being taught the game by the parents of one of the team.

By the time the biggest, strongest and quickest kids get dragged out of the amateur game and onto pro scholarships they should already have the basic skills mastered. Sadly for most, they don't.

We can moan about the standards of coaching at elite levels, team selection etc all we like, but the sad fact is that the standards of coaching in the junior game in this country simply aren't good enough to prepare kids for the professional arena.

skills in football are a funny one. Even at international level there are plenty of players who seem to struggle with the basics

That's because from the age of 8 they've been brought up in a culture where the focus is on how far and how fast you can run rather than what you can do with the ball at your feet.

There's a primary school near us that used to have 10 year old kids playing on a Saturday morning with a full size ball, on a full size pitch, ankle deep in mud. How is a kid going to learn about technique when he's got a teacher screaming at him from the touchline to hoof it as far away from his own goal as he can?

You can apply a similar argument to any of the primary winter games in this country.

Until rugby league gets its junior season moved to a time of year where kids are more interested in being outdoors and can have the time to work on their skills and decision making in daylight and relative warmth it's always going to struggle.

Two words: Geoff Thomas

Actually I read somewhere that one of the real problems is all the t@tting around they do - the actual "skills" they are taught. My 6 year old goes to football for a 1 hour session and last week they spent over half of it stood with a ball doing step overs. The week before they were standing on the ball and then hopping and chageing foot. Half a fekking hour! The continentals actually play football in training. All the kids get to feel comfortable in a match situation and to try things in a low pressure environment. They play very few real competitive matches until they get older. By then they all know what to do instinctively.
I've seen kids 11 a side games where they are all terrified of doing antything because they will get shouted at by the coach or laughed at by the parents watching.

Both my boys play RL - one open age and one u18 - they have played since 11 one thing that I have noticed through their younger years the prohibitive attitude of many parents - rather than enjoy and respect the efforts put in by these kids they appear happier to critisise them. This culture is not conducive to expression of skill as kids are scared of trying stuff for fear of a stern word - too many parents living their dream through their children

My brother reports the same at the rugby club that he coaches at, he's done teams up to U12, this year its the U8s that he's coaching but whichever team it is he and his fellow coaches always work on the principle that if the child turns up to train and play then he will get some game time even if it means taking off a player who is playing well one day.

You can imagine how a parent reacts when they see their child playing well and then be substituted by another kid who can't catch the ball and doesn't know where to stand - they bitch and whine all the time (the parents that is, the kids are usually very good and understand the reasoning behind the principle), fortunately the coaches have formed a great barrier to that sort of thing and simply tell the parent to go away (sometimes more forceful than that) or volunteer to help next week.

as some know i was a referee at a good level and am also a level 2 coach.
i see kids aged from 6 to 12 being 'coached' by fat clueless parents who simply want a game. the same applies to most sports.
i read somewhere last week that a RL coach was moaning that they don't get the kids till aged 12 which in a lot of cases is to late

When my daughter was still at primary school they had a girls team and it's the same with their parents mate.
Completely shocking and uncalled for when you've got a doylem shouting at 10yr old lasses like he's brian clough!!

I have to say that even football seems better organised here in some ways. My girlfriend's 7-year old started this year at a club, and they had 1 hour training per week with a game on Saturday. The club he's at ran something like 20 U-7 five-a-side teams, and was just one of four clubs on the inner northside of Brisbane. and yet 'soccer' is very much a minority sport here.

I coach under 7's and that's the way we do it. Kids all get a game, they are all part of the team. So far I haven't heard a single parent complain, they might be, but certainly not openly. We are lucky though, we have a team that has hammered everyone this year, so rotating players doesn't mean we lose games. Other clubs are different and we see that when we play against them. The coaches can be real ***kers. We hosted the big minis tournament in our area this September and our lads won all their games, and you should have heard the whining and moaning from coaches and parents. The coach of one team came over and lectured the guy I coach with.

I'm just a bit dissapointed with Smith's tenure as the National coach. I was excited at first, it was an appointment with a plan to improve the whole set up nationally and a long term one which i thought Smith would be well suited for... when he took the Wire job it was a disapointement - it was obvious his time was up. We need a long term appointment with no club comittments, someone to continue 'the plan' to improve our national game...Wayne Bennet would be ideal imo..

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 374591.stm Ford & Kear rule themselves out, although IMO Kear's rejection is less positive than Ford's.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 374591.stm Ford & Kear rule themselves out, although IMO Kear's rejection is less positive than Ford's.

Mike Ford was overrrated as a player, and he's been out of the game a long time anyway (I know the first bit's irrelevant but I don't care

). Kear would be a step backwards.

I guess the main issue would be just how 'real' the rest of the job is beyond coaching the England team. If it's a nothing job with no clout then you could appoint almost anyone.

Given the lack of outstanding candidates I'd be tempted to go for Hanley, just because he's high profile and would at least make life interesting.