I base this on Sarginson getting better throughout the year and from what I saw of Shenton deteriorating. In the play-offs and a few games before Sarginson was making 150m + a game. Him and Burgess formed a dangerous partnership down the left.

To begin with I was less than impressed with Sarginson. In all honesty I didn't think he had a future at centre and would have to try and get into the Wigan team at FB. His defensive reads where all over the show and he never looked for his wing man. But he's made me eat my words. His defence is aggressive, he makes quick decisions and doesn't give the opposition time on the ball. As I mentioned him and Burgess created a great partnership outplaying there opposite numbers throughout the playoffs and one of them or both scored every game.

Apparently it's you who doesn't remember, especially since you're now claiming to be including the CC.




You forgot to add "end of"

Is SOL still injured?

Well done Steve McNamara, you genius, for giving the England captaincy to someone who's spent less time on the pitch in the last 2 years than the Wigan water carriers.

Sarginson isn't quite ready IMO. He's a good pick to be in and around the squad though as he really started to fulfil his potential at the back end of the year.

If he keeps developing like he has done in his time at Wigan so far he could become a very good player indeed. His hunger for work is second to none with him coming close to 200m per game in the last few games of the season. I've heard a few question his defence but he's been rock solid IMO(at the back end of the year especially). His downfall early in the year was that he didn't seem able to put his winger in to space and was a bit ball greedy but again at the back end of the year he'd formed a great partnership with Burgess and was picking when to pass and when to run perfectly.

This time next year he could well be a starter for England IMO.

Indeed. That double GF winning coach Michael Maguire clealry didn't have a clue moving Tomkins to fullback.

I've never said they didn't include the CC - you did. You were wrong - again.

The clue was there for you when I even mentioned Tomkins wins INCLUDE the CC Final win.

I thought Smith did ok, and whilst personally I'd have gone with Tomkins & Widdop in the halves, if Smith & Widdop are who we've chosen and who we've trained with then, bar an injury doubt, I wouldn't change them. We need some consistency.

In fact the only change I'd make at all would be to bring in O'Loughlin if he's fit.


I agree.

Regards,
Kevin Penny & Dwain Chambers

Well then, and to quote you, yourself...

"You clearly don't remember"

Not sure why you're getting so wound up anyway. I've already said he'd be in my first 13 every time but, again, not at full back.

Let's see how Saturday goes.

I've no need to get wound up. You said something it was easy to prove was wrong but don't seem able to accept it.

Just to put this to bed, not only were you wrong to say:



But the complete opposite is true.

Leeds win % v Wigan when Tomkins played fullback = 25%

Leeds win % v Wigan when Tomkins didn't play fullback = 66%

Leeds win % v Wigan after Tomkins moved to fullback but didn't play because he was injured = 100%

Tomkins hasn't played in the halves for 4.5 years. Sunday v Australia in Melbourne is not the time to see if he's better there.

Nice stats, how many of those were play off or CC games?

You forgot to quote....



Feel free to carry on pretending those games never happened, i'm off to watch Gotham & The Blacklist.
I'll be back Sunday to either apologise or take the mick big time!

Either way I hope we're celebrating a historic win.

They're nice stats because they prove the complete opposite to what you said.

As I've already said, but you seem to have forgot:

Leeds only won 1 of out 4 sudden death/Knockout games (2 CC 2 Play-off games) when Tomkins play fullback.

25%.



I don't know why you need to wait until Sunday - it's not going to change Leeds record against Wigan when Tomkins played fullback.

The top teams generally nullified him at FB, similar to how the NRL teams generally nullified him.

Running through London and Wakefield with 'the move' creating an overlap wasn't exactly a masterstroke.
With Brett Finch and Deacon in the side it was just logical to move him to FB.
He tore Wire apart when he played at 6 earlier in his career and had only one moment at fb.

In the 3 and a bit years he played fullback for Wigan they won 2 Grand Finals, 2 Challenge Cups and 2 hubcaps. London and Wakey must have been pretty good to get to all those finals.

Obviously Maguire didn't know what he was doing. No wonder we got rid.

Yeah...did it all himself, from fullback are we talking rugby or just comparing length?

Like I said 2 half back spots with 3 halfbacks, now I'm no Rachel Riley but I see the problem.

If Michael Maguire was more than happy to move him to fullback more than halfway through a season when he'd played in the halves I reckon he was on to something. Especially when he decided to keep him there the following year and then Wane did the same.

I'm no Rachel Riley either but I reckon if Maguire thought Tomkins offered more in the halves than at fullback, somebody else would have made way. I doubt Maguire makes coaching decisions based on numbers, he's obviously no Rachel Riley either.

This discussion has turned into a proxy slugfest between Leeds and Wigan, via a few of their fans.

Steven McNamara has said that it was hard to pick a team early in the week when some players could not train (he was referring to Sean O'Loughlin). He went on to imply that if O'Loughlin can prove his fitness by game day, then he will play.

One of the problem in not having a warm-up game is that it gets harder and harder to rotate the team as those not in the 17 are less and less match fit. Mind you, if England beat Australia, McNamara would be able to pick all the squad players for the 'meaningless' game vs NZ....

That's why if Lockers is anything like fit I'd get him out there. If we lose we're pretty much out anyway I'd have thought and if we win he'll have two weeks to get right for the final.

He's worth a gamble.

So in short we have......
A captain who is semi fit & relies on pain killing injections
Our best attacking threat being placed outside a centre who can't pass
2 specialist hookers because neither can play 80 mins (despite one of them being named best player in SL)
A back row that even the Welsh would fancy their chances against

Then there's the fullback debate.......and the Ozzies are trying to tell us they're understrength!

Can't wait for Saturday, no really.

So I've only just seen the stats from the game

Our completion rate was 80%, which clearly has to improve against the Aussies.

James Graham was outstanding with 35 tackles (most) , with 2 missed; 17 carries (Most) 135 metres (most) no errors or penalties conceded and 6 passes.

By comparison, only Corey Parker topped 100 metres with Bird at 87 and the rest progressively lower.
The forwards missed 25 tackles between them, whereas England forwards missed 19....still high

The Aussies will clearly improve in their discipline so I would expect them to reduce missed tackles and errors (10) and penalties conceded

I would suggest we need to improve our completion rate and look to our strngth in the front row.

Samoa had us under the cosh in the first half and it shows with them making yards out wide, and Watkins (29) and Shenton (23) having to do a lot of work.

New Zealand pack missed 10 tackles, 3 forwards missing none. That is the standard we need to get to, to beat the Aussies.

I'm surprised at our back row
Farrell: Tackles 30; Missed 1; Carries 8 for 48 metres
Tomkins: Tackles 23; Missed 2; carries 7 for 53 metres
Westerman: Tackles 29; Missed 2; carries 6 for 54 metres
Ferres: Tackles 19; Missed 1; Carries 7 for 48 metres

Both Westerman and Farrell did better than I thought in defence but none were that good in attack.
SR attack needs to improve.

Stats don't mean everything of course, but it shows areas we need to work on.

Hoping we do make a few changes to give ourself a better chance. It is tough looking at the squad as some of the players are not good enough fr this level but have no better replacement available, particularly in the back row and three quarters. This side looks much worse than the one that lost in the semi final last year.

Was relieved to hear that the team named was only provisional, a fit O'Loughlin would be a big plus and I think Hardaker should play as Tomkins is a worry under the high ball. I would also start with a prop at loose in an aim to win the battle up front, then bring Sam Tomkins and Clark on at a time when their pace should be more effective. More importantly we need to see every player in white and red play as a team and to the best of their ability, the performance against Samoa wasn't good enough.

With your negativity, just how gutted will you be when you wake up on Saturday looking for a losing result to find out the games on Sunday?

Is there a full back debate? Not for me. Clark can play 80 but why should he when we have 2 hookers? Our best attacking threat is Sam. O'Loughlin will play if he's fit enough to play a test match.

Come on England.

I saw it hidden in the middle of an article somewhere that there's a bit of talk down under that we may be playing James Graham in the back row.

I wouldn't be against him going in at 13 if needs be but sadly I think that would mean O'Loughlin is out.

The best thing for the international game would be a New Zealand vs England final, in front of a full house in Wellington. But that requires England to beat Australia on Sunday. England players must stand up and be counted.

An England NZ final with an England win would be the most refreshing result for International Rugby League. Alongside the emergence of Samoa as a real force which in turn should inspire Tonga to up their game