Smith is very intelligent, knowledgeable and successful, he has close ties with many throughout the game, at all levels and huge amount of information to from his opinions from. He works hard and is experienced.

I can see why many RL fans don’t like him when he says things they dont want to hear.

Slightly O/T but Peter Wallace has also decided to play for Scotland as well.

Well said Tony Smith.

Depends on the extent to which he recognised and learned from his mistakes last time when England failed to even give a good account of themselves or fulfill even their fairly limited potential. IMO. It wouldn't especially excite me tbh. Equally, I'd acknowledge that is one of the few blots on his very impressive copybook.

Some of the players available for the World Cup are exciting - I just worry a bit about how the attempts to engender a club atmosphere by mainly sticking with a pool of players selected a couple of years out limits our options, which are already narrower than we'd like.




If he was right, then he was late. Licensing died to allow Bradford to be reborn.
Whether that was worth it or wise or not is open to debate, but the opportunity to be 'stable, strong and consistent' as he put it, had already gone. Possibly even before that, when they accidentally ended up letting newco Wakefield continue in SL. It could be argued that 'stable, strong and consistent' is better than 'transparent, fair and honest' of course. They're all very subjective terms anyway. Events blew the system off course very easily - as it was inherently weak - and the pretence of carrots and sticks couldn't be maintained. Propping up such an obviously flawed and weak system isn't strong, it'd be stupid, if it were even possible.
It has to be some form of P&R or out and out NRL-esque franchising, either of which represents change and either of which could equally be viewed as a strong or weak decision, depending on your own preference.

Yes he is/does.



I don't dislike him. I just think he's wrong on these issues and his arguments aren't even all that internally consistent, or deserving of especial credence - because his positive attributes are in other areas.

I think his argument actually made perfect sense, especially in regards to youth development and the effects of youth development at a national level under P+R. Lets face it, Tony Smith is the poster boy of franchising, he has seen the damage the uncertainty of P+R causes and its damaging effect on building a club at Hudds, he saw its damaging effects at national level as England coach (I wonder what Smith would have given to put out a back line of Tomkins, Hall, Watkins, Cudjoe, Charnley, rather than Wellens, Calderwood, Sykes, Senior, Smith) and under franchising he has taken a middling club to the very top echelons.

Im not sure many people are in a better position to comment.

Should probably have said something sooner then. I wouldn't dismiss what he says because he's some nomark, because clearly he isn't - on the other hand I'm not going to all jelly kneed because it is him saying it, any more than I would for any fairly prominent figure in the game. I can reel off a few big names that are in favour of various options, I'm just surprised that his view is perceived as all that weighty and that he seems to be very keen at the moment to wade into issues beyond his immediate remit.
De facto franchising, as opposed to criteria-based licensing, might well be working - but acknowledging that is what we have and continuing with it is itself change of a type. If that's what he's advocating.

Back on Brough - no different, that I can see, to any number of English or Aussie born players who have chosen Scotland or Ireland. Does TS think they've all got bad attitudes too?
If he's been a bit Billy Bighead with McNamara (which I can believe in fairness, and it'd have looked better focusing on choosing Scotland rather than any sense that he's rejected England), it seems unlikely to have cost him anything, as SM clearly doesn't fancy him and seems very unlikely to have picked him anyway. And the attitude-exclusion issue could be seen as a chicken and egg thing.

Whilst they aren’t within his remit, they certainly aren’t outside of his experience. Very few people have been England/GB coach, even fewer recently. The current and previous one seem to hold similar opinions on Danny Brough, and there isn’t a huge bandwagon of support for him coming from similary quarters. That in itself should be telling.He wasn’t advocating one specific structure. Just a less drastic change.

Brough had two choices, play for England or play for Scotland. He seems to have seen one as a stepping stone to the other, and when that hasn’t worked taken his bat and ball home. That is entirely the wrong attitude. Brough seems to have seen Scotland as a safety net, which again shows the wrong attitude, he should have gone all out and backed himself to play for England and taken it on the chin if not selected or committed to Scotland and been 100% to them. His chopping and changing and comments seem to betray a person doing what is best for themselves rather than their team.

How could you pick a WC with a player who is outright saying they wont play 2nd fiddle? How could you trust them? How could you trust that should they be dropped for whatever reason they would be a positive rather than negative influence on that squad? Especially with the history of being a poor team player and bad influence that Brough has.

If Brough wanted to play for England he should have taken the chance to make himself undroppable, instead his actions have made him unpickable.

Some fair points - although I think it reflects on the way the International game is set up, as much as on Brough. There's a good bit of movement between first and second tier International teams. Players move between Fiji or Tonga or Samoa and the Australian or New Zealand teams without much drama or censure.
I can understand the reasoning behind trying to build a close-knit squad with continuity of selection over a cycle, but the downside is that those that feel unfairly excluded (rightly or wrongly) will be aggreived and get disillusioned. I couldn't, honestly and in good conscience, say to Brough 'be patient and you'll get a crack'. Good for the competition that he'll be playing rather than just cleaning Richie Myler's boots, if nowt else.

The similarity between Smith's and McNamara's approaches, I don't find very reassuring. I had my doubts and misgivings ahead of 2008 and I'm feeling them again now. I want England to do well - it'd be such a boost for the sport. I want to be wrong, and I [ihate[/i being one of the doom-mongers, but it all feels horribly familiar.
Still, the proof will be in the pudding and we can but hope.

I think people are forgetting that it was Steve Mcnamara who asked Danny Brough to make himself available for England and not Brough deciding he wants to try and get a call-up .......in hindsight would Brough have agreed to do this if he knew he was never going to get picked for the England side regardless of how well he was playing ...would you ?

I can understand why Danny is frustrated as presumably he thought by agreeing to become available he would have more chance to shine at International level than with Scotland, more to the point why did Mcnamara ask him to change allegiances if he had no intention of picking him ??

People are saying Brough's attitude is wrong etc but what is he supposed to do when he's basically had the pee taken out of him ?

How has he had the pee taken out of him? He's just not made the squad for a mud season friendly, and Brough clearly doesn't have the coir meant or attitude to deal with that so he's taken his bat and ball home. I wouldn't want a player like that into squad either.

It's Brough who's made sure he doesn't play for England in the WC not McNamara

As I said make himself undroppable. If Brough said im disappointed not to be playing but im going to keep my head down, keep grafting away, and then went on to carry on his early season form for the entire season he would force his way in to the squad. He then goes in to the squad, trains out of his skin, goes the extra mile in every facet and he will earn the jersey.

He has basically removed that option from himself by declaring that he should be first choice or he isn’t going to play. That was never going to work regardless of talent. How was the rest of the squad, including the players he is demanding to replace, supposed to deal with that?

Its not McNamara who has stated Brough’s chance with England has gone, its Danny Brough

By constantly being left out by the very man who wanted him to choose England over Scotland ..and never picking him !

Brough joined Scotland when there was still GB - the RFL moved the goalposts - then he was asked to join England missed out due to injury and now hes in better form than any if thioe picked hes been overlooked.

He was not included in the ETS or the squad for the exiles game.

Brough wanted to play at the highest level he could.

He has done everything asked off him to play for England but has been overlooked.

As he still wants to play at the highest level ie the WC he has a choice play his heart out all season and still get overlooked by the idiot England coach. ( even if he got MOS he would be overlooked).

Tony Smith was quite happy to cherry pick players from other countries and to then dump them. He goes to Warrington He chose Bridge and Harrison for England after they played for Ireland and then dumped them. He has done nothing for international rugby and for him to say Brough's attitude is wrong is laughable.
Smith has never coached him. John Kear, Nathan Brown, Paul Anderson and Keiron Purtill have all coached him and have complemented him on his attitude.

Brough wants to play it is Mc Banana who is incapable of giving him the chance to shine. so he has no option but to go back to a coach and a country that will play him.

McNamara could only ever offer Brough the possibility of playing for England, never the guarantee. He could only ever off the chance. This is where Brough has got it so very very wrong. He seems to think that he is owed a place by McNamara for making himself available for consideration for England. He isn’t. The only thing he is owed is that consideration. Either Brough is in the England pool of players and McNamara will consider him for selection, or he is in Scotlands and McNamara doesn’t consider him. If Brough needs a guarantee that he will play, he wont get one. If that means he becomes a Scotland player again, he definitely wont be considered for England.

Constantly been left out? He was in the ETS, got picked for an Exiles game and didn't get picked in the autumn internationals as he was out of form and carrying an injury.

ATEOTD only Mcnamara/Brough and one or two others will ever knwo whats gone on between them.

The problem with that is that certain players do seem to be guaranteed their position, if fit. In a [usmall[/u number of cases, I understand why and it is probably justified.
Right now I'd have Brough ahead of Chase, Myler and McGuire (even assuming he wasn't injured). Sinfield brings something that nobody else does (though its value at international remains open to question), so I'll leave him out of the equation.
Anyway, that's just me - I could easily be wrong. Can anybody say with a straight face that he should be behind [iall[/i of them? McNamara must surely have an issue with him as a personality rather than a player - Smith seems to indicate that too.
Brough's reaction could either be seen as confirming McNamara's view of him or a legitimate reaction to having poorer players picked ahead of him because the coach thinks they're better people. Maybe he's a bad egg, 'maybe' SM is wedded to picking certain players no matter what. Maybe both.

The Saints and Leeds Allstars TS took to the last WC couldn't get beyond their club rivalry, according to Jamie Peacock, and that rather embarrassing admission of bad attitudes didn't seem to cost to many of them in the immediate aftermath.

Absolutely spot on. Even if Brough isn't the easiest of players to handle, SO WHAT! Don't become an international coach. Your not going to get 17 Sinfields who could probably train themselves.The tournament is very short, you should only choose the best players, not best personalities or easiest players to train etc. It's not just Brough, what about Atkins, because something has gone on between him and Mcnamara, we are having to watch a full back or second rower in the centres against the exiles.

Mcnamara is under huge pressure for the exiles game, lose, and the media and some fans will be wanting blood.

Good point, well made, Mild Rover.
It's part of the modern sporting psyche not to be bothered about your national team, as young kids everyone wants to play for England but, somewhere along the line, club becomes more important than nation.
Chase shouldn't be anywhere near an England jersey and Brough should be fighting for it with his last breath, not throwing his teddy out of the pram and as you say, for the last batch of players not to be able to see past their club colours is a disgrace.

Hopefully McCormack gets Peter Wallace in the halves also, since he is eligible.

If Brough is still the best choice when the WC comes around he should be in. It's still a way off yet, his form may dip. This one word answer he gave post match has been blown out of all proportion.

he was on radio tonight saying he has spoken to him and he wants to play

Has Brough crawled out from Travis Burns pocket yet?

International player of the year either danny sonny bill or inglis.
Yep danny definitely got the wrong attitude! !!!!