I wasn't suggesting that it would.

I was making the point that it is how management react to indiscretions that sets us apart. Aussie keep it in house. You won't know if Slater broke their rules (though I'm guessing that having a fight at 2.30 am probabaly isn't condoned!!!) - but he won't be sent home, because Aussie come to win. England set their own rules, judging players more harshly than other teams do - and where will it get them?

If England win the World Cup, I'll glady eat humble pie - and lots of it. As I've invested lots of money in buying tickets to every England game in the tournament and I've been underwhelmed by the performances so far, they really need to improve to win the semi. It annoyed me at Cardiff becasue I reckon with Hock and Graham in the team they could have beaten a rather flat Aussie team and given themselves practically a bye to the final. A chance missed I fear.

Yes that's how I would have dealt with it too. It seems rather sensible don't you think?

You were casting aspersions onto his character with no evidence, and continue to do so further down the page. He was [uattacked[/u on a night out, which the club had granted him permission to be on. As for the management of the players, I'm 23 and love going for a drink on Friday/Saturday nights. If I got picked to play for England ahead of 100s of other professionals in a tournament that only comes round every five years, I'm pretty sure I'd manage to stay sober for a month. Did you know that Michael Maguire imposed the same rule at Wigan throughout the 2010 play off series? Was it poor management then, or only when Steve McNamara does it?

I wasn't casting "aspersions". I don't think he did anything wrong particularly. Neither do the Aussies. He will play in the World Cup final. Now if only the England managment had such an enlightened view...

What is good management and what is poor management depends on whether it is works or not really.

Ever watch the Apprentice? Sugar never cares about the process only the outcome. It's the same in sport, when results are all that really matter at the end of the day. (By the way - do I agree with that? - not really, I think it's a bit sad, and probably not very healthy. But it is what it is). McNamara will be judged on results.

I don't actually think you know what your argument is.

Type "CCTV footage shows Slater attack" into Youtube, then you can make a decision on whether Slater was in the wrong or not after actually seeing the incident.

So the only reason Australia are going to win this world cup is because their managements rules are far more Lax than ours AND when the players break them they come up with a cover up story to make it look like they didn't?
Whilst we treat our players far too harsh and if we didn't we'd stand a better chance of winning the World Cup!

And to say you weren't suggesting we should let our standards slip is nonsense, you werent suggesting it, you said it.


Do you agree their should be "Rules" within the camp?
If so what's the point in having them if all your going to do when someone breaks them is not drop them and come up with a cover up story & keep it in House?

If players can't be trusted to stick to those Rules with them in place then what's the chance of them sticking to proffessional conduct without them in place?

You are deliberately misrepresenting my argument. England have far fewer good players to choose from. So it is vital that they have the best ones on the park to give them a good chance of winning. If England had a wealth of world class players we could afford to take a principled stance on player behaviour. But we don't. I paid my money to watch England have a chance of beating Aussie. They needed the best payers out there to do so.

I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of player behaviour, but about the bottom line - results.

He was [uattacked[/u

If you don't think he did anything wrong, you aren't half putting a lot of effort into taking others to task who also don't think he did anything wrong

Well if you read as well as you spell, I'm not surprised you don't.

OK - you've highlighted three things. What is your point?

I don't care whether Slater was out, whether he had a fight or whether he was attacked. And neither do the Aussies. My point is that England should have taken a similar view about Hock/Graham/Hardaker/MMc. Yes they broke the rules. But the rules are in place to optimise the chances of England winning. So they became counter productive when you have to drop players - players who you need in order to compete.

Edited my post above to clarify. As to your next bit, if you do that you send out very bad messages to the fringe players who follow the rules but can't get picked ahead of those who don't. Not to mention the first teamers who are then given carte blanche to ignore any rules they wish in future, safe in the knowledge they are indeed bigger than the team and undroppable

Deliberatley misrepresenting your argument?
You said you don't care about rules
You said if England had a wealth of World class players we could take a principled stance, so by inference because we don't we can become "Unprincipled"?

End of the day your argument stands up like this, You want who you think are the best players playing irrespective of what they do off the field.

Most other people don't share this view and none of your very thin anaolgies about what the other countries do stands up very welll so lets just leave it at that then eh?

When you are paid to run the national team you can do what you want but I'd suggest your chances of Winning anything would not be anymore increased with Gaz Hock & Hardaker or Graham & McCollorum in the team having been under your "Management" for the previous 6 weeks under the Non-Rules regime you'd run.

Ahhh, the old "I'm losing an argument so pick on an iPhone auto-correct" method. Very good.

Yes you are right in the points you make. And I agree if you were talking about say, Wigan. But this is international management and as such is different. You HAVE to pick the best players. You don't have the luxury of bringing through youngsters or losing the odd game to work towards the bigger picture (ie squad discipline)

As I say though, it depends how much you want to win? If you think picking fringe players like Carl Ablett against the Aussies is ok, then fine too.

No-one said management was easy that's why they get paid so much. McNamara's job is to manage England's world cup attempt. So far, he has alienated half the players, the press and and managed to lose a winnable game against Australia.

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/englands-steve-mcnamara-backed--2647716FACT![/url

Because most other people don't share my view doesn't mean I'm wrong. You are all glossing over the one salient fact here - England lost the game against Australia when they could have won.

I would respectfully suggest that I would treat the players like adults and not like children - giving them curfews and suchlike a week before the next game.

I would also suggest that Hock is a better player than Ablett and as such we would have a better chance of beating Australia with him in the team - likewise with James Graham.

Ever heard of the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face", because that's what McNanara did.

Some people thought we'd have been better off with Hock then Faz at Wigan last year and plenty would say he's a better player then any of last years back row (Faz, Hansen, Tuson or Hughes) and they may be correct but those lads have umpteen medals between them and Hock has none.

You want to have your best players playing but you can't just give them free reign to behave as they would like. It effects the harmony within the camp and undermines the coaching staff.

Agree. Given the loss to Italy (which has been way over-hyped imo), there would need to have been some head-banging & reorganisation before the biggest match of many of the players' careers thus far. For Hock & co to do what they did not only gave the finger to McN but also said to the rest of squad "we don't give sh*t about all this or you, we're above any of these rules & regs and we'll do what we want".
Contrast that to the Aussies going out the other night to wind down, I hope our lot were allowed to do the same & then regroup yesterday.
So far it seems to be working, but I'd certainly put Josh back at 2. Not a fan of McN, but I think we're ok in spite not because of him. But he & the squad need our support, not constant sniping. Save the brown stuff, sticks & fans 'til after the 30th.

Correct. I agree with your first point.

I think the harmony in the camp is affected more by winning and losing than anything else.

But for a one-off tournament right now surely you would pick Hock over Faz? Much as I love Faz I don't think he would scare the Aussies or NZ like Hock.

Gareth Hock had his chance. He blew it. Fact. End of discussion. Etc Etc Etc.


With regards to treating the players like adults, EVERY sports team in the World has a code of conduct. Wigan for example have a drink ban during certain stages of the season. You break the rules and you get punished. You continually break them and you're gone. See Hock and Hardaker for examples.

I would much rather have Hock in the side than not, but nobody is bigger than the team as shown with the dropping of Graham.

Yes Hock had his chance - you are right - and he blew it - also correct.

But just WHO did leaving Hock/Graham/MMc out of the team benefit? Well it certainly benefitted the opposition, and blew our best chance of winning the world cup.

Why punish the players and punish by extension the teams chances?

Shaun Wane was proved spectacularly right in his judgement of not just Hock but all his other decisions. How do we know he was right? Well - the double proves it. How do we know McNamara was wrong? Same logic - the game was lost. I'm afraid sport at the top level (not I hasten to add Junior level) is about results - plain and simple.

I can't believe that people like you still support McNamara. He got it wrong. The game was lost. AS YOU WOULD SAY "END OF".

Im not glossing over any saliant "Facts".
Do you know "FOR A FACT" that England would have won with Hock etc. in the team?
Do you know "For A FACT" that the other members of the squad wouldn't have responded as well that week and maybe just maybe if Hock, Graham, MM, Hardaker had have been selected then maybe just maybe the rest of the squad who did act professionally may have just thought sod this, these lot did what they wanted and still got picked why don't we just do what we want as no-one will kick us out the squad no matter what!
Do you know "For a Fact" that if those players had been selected we would have performed better?

Treat them like Adults! I dont think asking them to stay off the Beer is treating them like children.
Giving them Curfews! How do you know they had curfews? Going out drinking, Not turning up for a rehab & then Medical session plus other things (God I wish I could post what I'd been told Hock did!).
Don't start making up things like curfews to make it look like the England camp were running some Harsh type of enviroment.

Do I think we would have won with Hock,Graham,MM in the 1st game? No,Maybe but not for sure
Do I think we would have performed better with Hock,Graham,MM in the 1st game? Maybe,Maybe Not

Do I think we stand a better chance over the 6 weeks of the tournament having Team Rules in place that all the players by in to rather than have No Rules or exceptions for so called Star players who want to break those rules for whatever reason and the coach/management have to constantly cover it up. Then Most definately!



I think the Harmony in the camp is better served when ALL OF THE PLAYERS can see their mates pulling in the same direction.
If Gaz Hock Trained and conducted himself and could be trusted to play as disciplined a game as FAZ then yes I would have him in there ahead of him especially for a bench spot.
At the moment Faz's professionalism on/off the field narrows that gap and IMO contributes far more to Team spirit, team ethics and overall performance of this team than Hocks indiscipline and then occasional flash of brilliance followed by Brain fart.

Put simply, If Hock, Hardaker, MM etc. were allowed to get away with things constantly then I believe very soon the rest of the players would say Balls to this and then the whole camp would fall to Bits leading to less productive Team performances on the whole and only enhanced by the occosional piece of brilliance by one of the "Special Allowance players".

other than it's not "END OF" in your argument is it?
There's still 3 weeks of the tournament left, what happens if we do win it? Will MCnamara have been right then?
The end result does not always justify the decision.
Wane was right with Hock because he was right, not because he won the double!
When it comes to discipline etc. within a camp you can only take a long term view and if results improve because of it then all well and good, if they don't then so be it because you can't make a disciplinary decision based on what results "You want" to get.

McNamara was right because the rules were in place and the players broke them.
To go back on these rules would have far more detriment long term on the squad than the short term positives from it.
E.G England win in Cardiff against OZ and then the next 5 weeks on the lash and don't make the Semis/final etc as the players don't give a stuff or don't give a stuff as they can see indisciplined players not pulling their weight affecting other more disciplined players.

I don't support McNamara. I support England.

The best thing for England IMO is that nobody is bigger than the team.