Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:13 am  

Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:

Widdop is very frustrating to watch. He clearly has a lot of ability, but doesn't seem to have the first clue how to put the pieces together.

Widdop is a "Steadie Eddie" standoff in the NRL, not exceptional, but he plays every week at a higher level than any of our other halves. Maybe Williams has the potential, I also like the look of Patton at Wire, but we need them to play against NRL standard opposition every week.

I find it frustrating when people advocate for Gale or Brown or any other halfback who looks classy against soft SL defences, until such time as the Kiwis and Aussies actually play a soft SL style defence (which is realistically never), then those players are not going to get us anywhere. I'll take "Steadi Eddie" Widdop every time over a more flashy halfback who only does it on a flat track.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:17 am  

People are banging on about halfbacks but we beat the aussies in 2001 with Sculthorpe and a 21 year old Sinfield in the halves! The key to all the wins against them I've seen (01, 04, 06) IMO was getting stuck into them for the full 80. When we give them no respect and make it uncomfortable for them, they can be beaten by a technically inferior side.

We just didn't look like we had the attitude that we wanted to get in their faces and beat them IMO. Nothing made it more apparent than Watkins backing off and apologising when Cronk started shoving him. Watkins should have been dreaming of an invitation to batter one of their best players with no forwards around to protect him! Senior wouldn't have needed asking twice, I wonder what Inglis/Dugan would have done to Brown/Widdop in the same circumstances.

Focus is also a big issue, 2 missed kicks for touch, not numbering up at a scrum being the obvious examples. We very rarely see that in SL so no excuse for our best players doing it at international level!

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:23 am  

Agreed. The team that was out there could have beaten the Aussies if the mistakes were cut out:

Missed touch lines x 2
Dropped balls in try scoring positions x 2/3
Breaks blown by poor sections (Hall and Watkins)

We did the same v the Kiwis, created enough to win the game but didn't execute it fully.

Take those chances and cut the mistakes and even with the same players we're in the game.

Same old story though, it's being comfortable playing close to error free football every week that will move us forward not necessarily a different set of players.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:29 pm  

I agree with Grimmy (above) to the extent that we needed to be much better motivated than we were. Burgess showed some fight (literally) when the game was over. I expected our much vaunted pack to put up more of a tough display than they did.

The appointment of Bennett over well qualified British coaches (including Steve McNamara) hasn't worked, in fact we have regressed. The displays in all four of his games this autumn have been poor. I fully expect him to do what all Aussies tend to do once the going gets rough - and you all know what I mean - which Super League club hasn't had a big name Aussie terminate their contract early on the grounds of 'family reasons'?

We needed to pick Williams over Brown and Gale. There is a reason why Kev Brown and Luke Gale are at middle ranked teams. They aren't good enough to play at the top teams. People whingeing that only the top teams like Wigan and Saints get their players picked - well, there is a reason for that, the top teams come top because they have the best players, not because of divine right.

Bennett complained that we don't have a winning mentality. Tell that to Shaun Wane.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:49 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

I go with this. We just don't have the depth. Kids who are good at sport tend to be good at more than one, and if they are going to try for professional standard it eventually comes down to the one they a) have an aptitude for and b) can actually make pay. The rewards for playing pro-RL are too low if you can turn you and to something else. I always think of a player like Stephen Myler, a fringe SL player who managed to carve a very decent career out of RU because what he could do was well rewarded in RU.

Quite sobering when you see that half of the England 24-man squad was supplied by just three club acadamies. Where are these supposed "hotbeds" of RL talent that we keep hearing about, because there sure as hell aren't in the East Riding, Cumbria and the Calder Valley.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:51 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

Quite sobering when you see that half of the England 24-man squad was supplied by just three club acadamies. Where are these supposed "hotbeds" of RL talent that we keep hearing about, because there sure as hell aren't in the East Riding, Cumbria and the Calder Valley.

Hodgson and Taylor from the East Riding in this squad - which could arguably have had Houghton and Shaul too

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:12 pm  

Wilde 3 wrote:

Hodgson and Taylor from the East Riding in this squad - which could arguably have had Houghton and Shaul too

Whilst I may be being overly harsh, two players produced by two clubs in what we're constantly told is RL country doesn't sound that impressive, but accept it's not the worst example.

I keep hearing on here that we should pack it in trying to grow the game away from the heartlands and focus on where we're strongest. If this is the best that the stronghold of the game can come up with, we may as well pack it in now.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:34 pm  

Aboveusonlypie wrote:

I agree with Grimmy (above) to the extent that we needed to be much better motivated than we were. Burgess showed some fight (literally) when the game was over. I expected our much vaunted pack to put up more of a tough display than they did.

The appointment of Bennett over well qualified British coaches (including Steve McNamara) hasn't worked, in fact we have regressed. The displays in all four of his games this autumn have been poor. I fully expect him to do what all Aussies tend to do once the going gets rough - and you all know what I mean - which Super League club hasn't had a big name Aussie terminate their contract early on the grounds of 'family reasons'?

We needed to pick Williams over Brown and Gale. There is a reason why Kev Brown and Luke Gale are at middle ranked teams. They aren't good enough to play at the top teams. People whingeing that only the top teams like Wigan and Saints get their players picked - well, there is a reason for that, the top teams come top because they have the best players, not because of divine right.

Bennett complained that we don't have a winning mentality. Tell that to Shaun Wane.

It's a strange one really. As you know, I have my reservations about Wane, but I do wonder whether he would be better in terms of instilling the level of aggression and determination required, particularly as he is British and is therefore as frustrated as the rest of us with the aussies almost invariably beating us. The problem of course is that he is hardly a master tactician, and I do wonder whether the way he gets determination from players would be as effective when he isn't developing a relationship with them every day for years. Overall I think the appointment of Bennett made sense even though it was harsh on McNamara, and given his CV it makes sense to stick with him to see what he can do in the World Cup after another year with them.

As for the halfbacks, I agree but for different reasons. It was daft to pick Brown in the squad given that he is 32 and has not played a competitive international. The only way he should have been in was if he was good enough to be first choice. Otherwise it's really shortsighted, I'd have had Sneyd in the squad instead just for him to get the experience of being around the squad, and a game against Scotland. Gale I can understand more, he is four years younger than Brown and accustomed to being the main man who needs to make things happen against technically superior opposition. If it had worked, we could have been sorted for 4 years or so with him developing with the experience. However, it didn't, and realistically I'd say he needed to take that opportunity given his age. Next year we need to look to the future and pick Williams + 1 (needs to be an organiser with a good kicking game, likely still Widdop) to maximise his development. Hall and McGillvary (both 'middle 8s' this year) were two of our only players to come out with credit from the tournament so I definitely wouldn't agree about only picking from the top teams.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:47 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

It's a strange one really. As you know, I have my reservations about Wane, but I do wonder whether he would be better in terms of instilling the level of aggression and determination required, particularly as he is British and is therefore as frustrated as the rest of us with the aussies almost invariably beating us. The problem of course is that he is hardly a master tactician, and I do wonder whether the way he gets determination from players would be as effective when he isn't developing a relationship with them every day for years. Overall I think the appointment of Bennett made sense even though it was harsh on McNamara, and given his CV it makes sense to stick with him to see what he can do in the World Cup after another year with them.

As for the halfbacks, I agree but for different reasons. It was daft to pick Brown in the squad given that he is 32 and has not played a competitive international. The only way he should have been in was if he was good enough to be first choice. Otherwise give it to Williams who is at least as good, and will be a better player next year as a result, as opposed to Brown will presumably retire after a season or two. Gale I can understand more, he is four years younger than Brown and accustomed to being the main man who needs to make things happen against technically superior opposition. If it had worked, we could have been sorted for 4 years or so with him developing with the experience. However, it didn't, and realistically I'd say he needed to take that opportunity given his age. We now need to look to the future and pick Williams + 1 to maximise his development.

I don't think that tactics are that important in International rugby as Bennett's tactics are hardly complex - unless I'm missing something (which is highly likely!). I think Wane would have been able to motivate the team in a way that Bennett couldn't - he can't really lead a rallying call against the Aussie b'stards-being one himself!

That said I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong about Bennett and I really don't want Wane to be introduced to the hate-a-thon that would inevitably ensue when we lose (I leave that to Wigan fans ).

I shelled out money to see all three of England's games and I feel that we didn't put our best foot forward at all. The atmosphere was like a snooker hall at both Coventry and London. Quite how stadiums that are half full can help the national team I'm not sure. I'd have played the three games at Wigan, Leeds and Hull and to hell with growing the game outside the heartlands until we have a winning team to be proud of, that people will be interested in coming to see play.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:52 pm  

Superted wrote:

Just on the Wayne Bennett front - those who were expecting better tactics, set plays, game management etc, are barking up the wrong tree - that's not his strong point. His greatest strength is his man management - he's always surrounded himself with various assistants who cover the game plan/tactics, fitness, technique etc - he's the calming influence, the words of wisdom, the motivator to 'be the best you can'.

So he's just the man behind the curtain with the megaphone?


The Wizard of Oz, indeed.