Seriously??

Maybe Barry McKenzie ought to post an easy to understand guide to the UK so my fellow countrymen know whats what over here if they visit.

Wales. Beautiful place (apart from the south with unfriendly people) who hate the English. The Cawl is to die for.

Scotland. Beautiful place with friendly people who like Aussies but hate the English. Great porridge.

Northern Ireland. Beautiful place (not including Belfast or parts of Derry) with friendly people (as long as they don't think you are English) half of which hate the English. A visit to 'Nor ire-and' as the locals say would not be complete without a visit to the Bushmills whiskey distillery.

England. A cold, damp uninspiring place full of people with poor teeth, chips on their shoulders and poor personal hygiene who arent very good at Rugby league. The food is truly revolting.

I ain't going to argue.

Every single poster on every single internet forum south of the Isle of White were saying that England were so far behind Australia and New Zealand that it was embarrassing

England beating New Zealand and getting to the final of the 4 Nations represents a significant improvement on the previous years

Improvement in performance and results equals a positive

OK, your turn to explain to me how that is not a positive (and not the above please, could I trouble you for a ‘real’ reason why improvement in performance and results is not a positive)

With respect if you see 2 wins (a poor win over a French side coached by someone like Bobby Golding and a lucky result against a Kiwi side that didnt turn up) plus 2 good old fashioned floggings by Australia as a 'positive' I can't imagine what you consider to be a negative

History wont remember your 2 wins.

History will remember the fact you got rooted in the final.


I genuinely feel for the England team in this years 4 nations. I cant see them winning ANY games.

I'm afraid that you haven't explained why an improvement in performance and results cannot be seen as a positive

And if you are going to start going down the route of every English win is based on the opposition 'not turning up' we may as stop this conversation now

I'll try and put it as plainly as I can.

My girlfriend is a terrible cook. Last night she 'cooked' a lasagne. She didnt cook the pasta properly and burnt the cheese on top.

Tonight she knocked up a shepherds pie. It was a bit tastier than the lasagne but still needed half a bottle of tomato sauce to make it half palatable.

So whilst it would be fair to say tonights meal could be described as an 'improvement' its also fair to say that she is no Jamie Oliver in the kitchen (although she can sometimes be just as annoying)

I can't see a 'positive' here either.

OK, let me try and put my point forward as equally plain as I can

18 months ago, England were considered the third best team out of the big three, Australia, New Zealand and England

Then we beat New Zealand and got to the final of the 4 Nations

Your cooking story was kind of funny though

So what you are saying is that 18 months ago England were the third best nation out of the 3 that play Rugby league to a half decent standard.

And now, 18 months later they are..........still third best out of 3??


England will occassionally beat NZ. Once in a blue moon they will beat Australia.

But 99% of the time they wont. Unless they get lucky.

Thats why England are still ranked third.

I honestly don't know how to start replying to this

Take that how you will

Good night Barry, sleep well