We will never know. Brough could have given us that extra 1% that took us over the line. Maybe he would have gone missing, no one will ever know. Sinfield and Widdop played very well together. That is why i've been saying all through the tournament to give Widdop an 80 minute game to show what he can do, 20 minute spells don't give any player to show what they can do. How big a mistake was Mcnamara's faith in Chase?

Exactly.

It was a mistake having Widdop on the sidelines in favour a Chase. Took him three years to realise. Same could possibly be said about Sinfield over Brough but we will never know under McNamara.

Given Brough is much much quicker, he'd have gotten to the player rather than Sinfield's floundering a la 2005 against Paul Cooke, he hasn't learn't a thing. Sinfield came out the D-line in the first half in exactly the same fashion..
And yes, Brough would have been better, Sinfield's kicking was average at best especially when he should have kicked at least to touch if not made the ball dead on our last set, that was absolutely dreadful.

What a load of rubbish. Brough would have been swatted off with ease, and he wouldn't have set up the two tries Sinfield did that you conveniently forget.

Brough will never be our answer at half back, he simply isn't good enough for this level. Other than Myler we actually don't have a good enough standard out and out scrum half in this country at the moment. Hence why Sinfield had to fill that role as well.

Of course he would, maybe he'd have failed to make touch on our penalties like he did against the kiwis?

What you are also disregarding is john sons footwork to beat Sinfield, he's made quite a few people look mugs with his footwork before!

If Sinfield had made that tackle NZ don't score if Sinfield stays in line NZ score as they had the numbers on us.

How do you know that? He was the best player in the league this year. Sinfield wasn't the best this year. In fact I think he has been poor all year. But he played well today.

Brough as good a player he is, is not a top notch defender, to say Brough would have shut SJ is pure conjecture.

This is the Danny brough who is still looking for dummy tuivasa-sheck sold him a week ago?

I hadn't highlighted that because I didn't want to get into this individual player thing. However, now you have raised it.....more telling than the missed tackle, was the walk back rather than chase back afterwards.

The argument about brough is stupid. He took his bat and ball because he wasn't first choice.

If he's going to do that, by definition he doesn't have the attitude to success for england at this level.

Talking hypothetically about what would or wouldn't have happened with brough in the team is just a pointless, nonsense discussion.

Two big ifs there.

I will add a third IF Sinfield stays in line they score a try on the touch line. Then it makes the kick at goal very difficult and it is probably a tied game

It was the sign of a good attitude , wasn't it?

LOL

And the same SBW who got trampled by Burgess?

Sinfield holds his line, they score out wide kick conversion.

''why didn't sinfield rush out and shut the play down? that was the only option''.

It's not just opinion anymore, it's a vendetta.

No it's not it's idiots like you who cannot see the big picture and just try to obfuscate the issues by focusing on littele things. The big things are the real issues. I had no problem with Sinfield today apart from his kicking.

MY concerns is that England lost this world cup before its started. McNamara was the wrong man, his selections were wrong, his tactics were wrong


Playing Chase for three years instead of Widdop ( or Brough ) was wrong , T Burgess or Mossop ahead of any other half dozen props was wrong eg Carvell , Not playing Widdop most of the tournament and then sticking hinm in at the end was a mistake. He should have played most of the tournament to be ready for his half back partnership. Picking 17 players and only playing 16 was wrong.

I do not blame Sinfield for any of that yet you are still so stupid you cannot answer the points except to create arguments that are not there so as to avoid the real issues.

I don't think anyone has ever complained that a player should have rushed out of the line. It's not something you "should" do.

But if you want to think people would say that, you go ahead!

To say he wouldn't is also conjecture.

Brough hasn't got the bottle to produce on the biggest stage like Sinfield did today.

As opposed to Chase who has been superb for England ever since he made his England debut ??

Broughy does not get on with Sinfield so I have heard. Wonder why?

He doesn't get on with many players, including his Giants team mates, from what I have heard.

That would be relevant, if I was discussing Chase? If you think Chase was Brough's competition, guess again.

That would be relevant, if I was discussing Brough as direct competition with Chase? If you think Chase was Brough's competition, guess again.

A bit cryptic arent you.

This discussion was never just about Brough. England did not lose today because of one selection issue.

I must have missed it not being about Brough, what with the thread title and that!

You're trying to make an argument that Brough should have played, I'm saying that, given his propensity to go missing in the big games, he shouldn't.

All that needs to be said about Brough is in the title of the thread. You may as well wish Cherry-Evans (a far better player) was playing for England. Like Brough he could have, like Brough he chose not to.