Quote ="Code13"No they werent, not even close.
They were the best we had that had played for England already and also played for a "top 4" club.
Same as always and same as always they lost.
and that touring NZ team was a totally different team to the one that played in the world cup.'"
Of course they were the best, 15 of them played for two sides that were miles ahead of the rest of the league! The league isn't like some random lottery where the top 4 are the top 4 regardless of ability. If the rest of the league is full of players that are better than those that played for England, why have the top two teams been the same for the last couple of seasons?
Or does your criteria for who is the 'best' not include contributing to your team winning lots of rugby matches?
