It's certainly something I've missed & picking someone for their imaginary running is a first. He is just not international standard IMO. I have said for a few years that Sinfield is a great captain, the best English captain by some distance, but not big enough for 13, too slow for 6. I thought if you could get him in the middle coordinating a team going forward he could maybe translate his club form. He is doing that & more the last 2 games.

I was trying to point out his range of skills. I'm not particulary an advocate of him at international level because he is lightweight, but he is still a player of merit and not the "flat track bully" that people reckon.

What I did expect to see from him on Saturday was him being rotated with Roby and taking up Sinfields usual role when he was playing hooker (that was when roby had originally been named as a starter). This didn't happen and he just came on as a 2nd row. There are probably better (heavier) players for that job.

James Graham won Man Of Steel the other year, and was named in a World 13, from the World Cup, if I remember right he was the only English player in it. He's 1 of a very few that can play the full 80(Although this didn't do Fieldon any good in the long run). He's considered World class.

Adrian Morley, although well into his 30's is hugely respected down under aswell as here. And is probably the best he's ever been, due to the fact he's stopped trying to take everybodys heads off.

Jamie Peacock is World class too. Along with Ellis & Burgess.

James Graham is definitely world class and both Peacock and Morley have been although their stars are now waning. We have a set of forwards to beat the Aussies, probably a better set of forwards than the Aussies. It's our backline where the issues lie and we are lightyears away from the Aussies in that respect. But some of that is our own fault as we have chosen to import wingers and centres and such like rather than grow our own, which is why the inclusion and development of Tomkins and Eastmond (et al) is vital for the future health of the English game.

This year is too early for Tomkins and Eastmond to take on the responsibility of a halfback partnership. That Sinfield did so well in distribution is great and the arrangement should be maintained for Saturday as it can only get better. Having Tomkins and Eastmond free to play their own game, with kicks and line breaking along with their excellent defence will be even more important against the Aussie backline and their style of play than it was against the Kiwis.

Somehow, anybody would think you don't like Saints palyers - e.g. Roby and Graham as you seem to take any opportunity to snipe at them. Can't you put your obvious prejudices away for once?
We are talking England here, not club rivalries.

We shouldn't even need to think about a 'ball handling' loose forward. Aus and NZ never use them. They don't exist in the NRL. What does is SMART hookers and a good halfback pairing. That should provide all the decision-making and ball handling a side needs. And I for one genuinely believe that the British obsession with ball handling loose forwards is one reason why we struggle to produce class halfbacks.

Leeds is probably the classic case study. What we have is three very good players in McGuire, Burrow and Sinfield. And from a club viewpoint I wouldn't want any of them to leave. However, I would also suggest that part of McGuire's problem at international level (at least under other coaches) has been the fact that he plays only on one side of the field for Leeds most of the time, Burrow on the other. In many respects they are both 'partnered' at halfback by Sinfield and not each other. They are also not responsible for most of the decision-making or kicking. Again areas which stand out as poor when they play for England without Sinfield.

Interestingly one of the NRL trends that's worrying some people is a perceived gradual replacement of genuine stand offs like Lockyer with runners.

To be controversial I thought the HB partnership for England was very poor from a creative & structure viewpoint. There was no end of effort & glimpses of individual class but I was disappointed in how the HBs directed the team around the pitch - especially from Eastmond who astounded me with his maturity for Saints at HB this year - granted Sinfield was doing this but you need a number of players to be able to take control. I think Burrow could have done what they did & more, though they have the potential to be better so no complaints if we stick with them.

Tetchy aren't we? My comments were in answer to some ill-judged posting which Sinfield proved wrong. Your churlish comments reek of club bias as you fail to understand the contribution made by Sinfield's Man of The Match performance. His shortlisting for the coverted Golden Boot award and his selection at loose forward in the International Federation "Team of the Year" (one of only 2 SL players + Ellis) show that others on the International scene do not share your one eyed view.

Apologies if my calling it as I see it offends your inability to see through your Saints-tinted spectacles. I'm not quite sure how saying someone isn't world class can be considered sniping at them mind.

I'll be sure in future to clear all my opinions with you, ok?

Calling as you see it = your obvious predjudices, based on the evidence of your recent posts. Its not your opinons of who is world class or not that show this, its the snide way you have to pick on those that don't make it in your eyes. By a huge coincidence they just happen to play for Saints.
Still if its makes you happy.

With regards my Saints tinted glasses. I don't think you have any evidence of that.
For example I thought Sinfield was exceptional and filled his potential and in the end deserved his place ahead of Roby on form.
I agreed that Wellens and Pryce were right to be dropped.
I am far from sure that our new "heroes" Arnold and Tomkins will cut the mustard in a big game etc.
I thought Westwood was excellent as was Crabtree, Ellis, Burgess Graham and Hall and that Morley and Peacock are both looking a little quiet etc etc

Don't think you will find much Saints bias in those opinions matey. My only bias here is in in favour of England!
(you might find a tiny little bit of my Saints bias if you go on the club forum but I try to stay objective on the international matches).

I can see your point but I would disagree with it. There can't be more than one leader in a team. Both Tomkins and Eastmond had their roles - clearly that included kicking duties and defensive oversight (think of Eastmond screaming for cover to move over when he could see the danger created by Fox leaving the wing exposed). Neither Tomkins nor Eastmond - especially Eastmond - is experienced enough yet in their roles at club level to take on too much responsibility at international level. IMO, obviously.

So it was spite then? How childish.


Spot one post anywhere on these boards where I have done anything other than praise Sinfield for his game on Saturday and then repeat what you say above. You will feel just a tad silly methinks.

I don't think he deserves the Golden Boot. That's OTT. But he undoubtedly had a great game on Saturday and I hope he repeats his performance - betters it, even - this Saturday.

However, I also said in my post that all the team deserved praise for their efforts last weekend and I include Wilkin in that. Wilkin is underrated by some Saints fans never mind fans from other clubs. But he works damned hard, like I said, and he also has good hands, can kick well (two 40/20s in the match that saw Leeds out of the CC last season as an example) and can make great breaks. He has also been a bit of an interception specialist.

I'm not talking about leaders, that is Sinfield in all but name. I'm talking about 3 players - eg Smith, Thurston (though I prefer Greggs) & Lockyer) -who have the ability to threaten the line every time they have the ball. ATM our HBs don't do that.

Whatever the inexperience of Tomkins and Eastmund, they have proven that they have no fear in shouting at senior players and giving orders, more importantly, they've proven they have no fear of the Aussies. It is strange how we talk about inexperience, yet the Aussies aren't afraid to drop stars for the younger players if they are in form. Finally we are doing the same.

I would like to see them link up more at first and second receiver rather than playing on each side of the pitch, which is a problem with having Sinfield as another pivot. However, the tactics have worked so I can't complain too much.

On the subject of Wilkin, he is there most probably as a versatile replacement. He is yet to prove himself at international level, but he's useful t have as an option on the bench covering 2nd row or 13 or even centre (which is a position i'd like to see him play more generally).

Why is putting another point of view childish? or spiteful? as it was in answer to another post which had been running Sinfield down.



I think your following comments come under the "anything but praise" heading.



All this is qualified faint praise for our MOM who was our creative organiser, top tackler, goal kicker and leader on the field. His passes were putting our forwards and backs into space. Also no need for the cheap shot comments and accusations of club rivalry, spite & being childish as stooping to personal comments just dissipates your arguments.

Now to be positive and also to be fair I know you have also said some very positive things about Sinfield's performance and I agree with you that Wilkin, like Sinfield, is very underated.

Bollox. You quoted my direct response to criticism of Wilkin. I was saying in that post that Sinfield did make mistakes - one big one, actually (passing to the opposition isn't generally a skill we encourage!) - but I wasn't criticising him for that. I was praising all the team's effort, including Sinfield and Wilkin. I wasn't getting into petty, ridiculous club squabbles as you seem to be doing.

I'm not going to glorify Sinfield because RL is a team sport and it took the whole 17 to pull off that win against NZ. But while I have recognised that Sinfield is human (and he is, honest!), I have not criticised him anywhere. I have consistently said all over these boards that he played well. As did 16 other men. That's why we won.

SaintsFan wrote: Spot one post anywhere on these boards where I have done anything other than praise Sinfield for his game on Saturday and then repeat what you say above. You will feel just a tad silly methinks (unquote)

You asked me to spot one post and I did. Now you are wriggling when proven wrong

Your praise of Sinfield is qualified praise which appears to stick in your throat. Sure they all played well but Sinfield was oustanding so just to say " he played well as did 16 other men" is just churlish.

You jumped in to condem with personal comments, my answer to another post which had implied Sinfield could pass as well as Wilkin. To imply Wilkins efforts (15-20 minutes) against NZ compared with Sinfield's (80 minutes) is fatuous.

Don't be soft. And I'm not going to pander to your Leeds insecurities by giving Sinfield more praise than anyone else. They all deserved praise and they all get it from me, including Sinfield.


Not if they played equally well. The time on the pitch is immaterial. It's how well they play when they are on it which counts, otherwise we could never praise our props.

They did not play equally well that is the point. The fact that you think so shows a pathetic Saint Helen's bias. Next you'll be saying Graham played better than Crabtree and Ellis

What a waste of a subs place. He was only used for about 10-15 mins...I don't get it? This isn't a dig at Wilkin, but at Smith.

The only time I saw Wilkin was when he was coming off.

Behave yourself and stop acting like a child.

Why are you still into "my dad's bigger than your dad" type arguements? Most people leave that behind in primary school.

Raw nerve?

No. Astute posting.

Well you would say that wouldn't you!