thegimble wrote:
Difference is SBW is not reyurning to league from what i can gather.
And Burgess will be a bigger gain for England as will Sam Tomkins as full back.
Regardless of where the game is played England now are as fit as Aus or NZ. Weyher they played in NZ or Dubai they were gone.
Is this forum once again looking at a Wigan player not in the England side and people having a whinge. Last night showed Toby is by far the best hooker in SL and McNamara needs to do whay Wane also needs to play his hooker for 80.
So you know for sure that SBW is not returning to league and Burgess definitely is? Any other facts for us?
I agree Tomkins will be a gain for us as will Burgess if he changes sport but their players they had missing will be a far far far bigger gain for them and to try and argue that is a tad silly in my opinion!!
Regardless of where the game is played? Yes we looked fitter on this occasion but I wouldn't be making sweeping statements on the fitness of us compared to them and the Aussies just yet! At least wait till we are consistently competitive with them when all teams are at full strength or there or thereabouts anyway! Also home advantage doesn't make a difference? Think you need to look at Wigan's home and away record for last year and Catalans for that matter!!
When did I whinge because MM wasn't in the England squad? I agree on form he shouldn't be! I was making the point that a full strength NZ which they are currently not would obviously give us a much tougher test and that is where in my opinion we would need MM over Hodgson! Roby should always play, again I don't recall saying he shouldn't!
SBW is now first choice centre if Nonu retires from International and at his age he will I think. Sam Burgess will not stay in union most know that. Even his brother has hinted.
As for home form never mentioned form I mentioned fitness. No matter where that game was played NZ fitness compared to England was shocking. When did England last beat NZ or Australia and looked fresher ending the game. Most of the NZ players are from the NRL so you would have excepted it the other way round.
Roby should play 80 minutes. Ironically I am not English do not give a monkey in any sport apart from League what you lot do. But looking at the results over the last 2-3 years you got to admit England look like giving any pack even Australia a run for its money. If Burgess returns England have a sniff in 2017. That side should develop and improve. And England have the best props in the game atm.
Not saying England will win it but they now have the potential to give Australia and NZ a challenge. 5-6 years ago they would have been hammered.
As for full NZ side against an English side with Sam T and Sam B 50/50 game.
The point I am making about Sam B and SBW is that they both are completely unavailable at the moment so the rest is hypothetical!!
Our forwards in recent years have always competed with Aus and NZ for very long periods, it's the backs were we have not been at the races!!
I am English and I love our nation but I am also a realist! This is a very good chance to beat a weakened NZ team in our own backyard, if we don't we have serious issues. When they are back to full strength along with Australia and especially away from home (hence the home and away comments) I still think we will be found wanting sadly!!
Again I also think Hodgson will and I just believe in the tougher games MM's defence would be priceless!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
cpwigan wrote:To be fair to Hodgson his game has not been found wanting in the NRL; far from it.
We will see when he is truly tested at international level!! I hope he has a great career for us by the way, but when the going gets tough would have MM all day long!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
To cause even more of a ruckus...One thing McIlorum needs to improve is defence!
We all love his hard hitting no nonsense attitude. But really, he misses too many tackles. He has one of the worst tackle success rates of any hooker in the league. By the way, Logan, Williams and Powell when playing as our back up hookers have much better tackle success numbers in the last two years.
I know the stat can be misleading, but you all must see it. For all the positives, Micky misses too many tackles. It's pointless being in opponents faces if they just bounce off you and keep going, or if you give a penalty away. That happens too much with Micky in the last couple of years. Sometimes he gets the crowd up or fires his teammates up, and that's great, but sometimes what's needed is to stop your man and wrap up the ball. If he was more selective about what was needed when, we might see a better performance. It might also save a bit more of him physically to do better with the ball, although I think he showed he has a bit more range and versatility in attack at times this year even though it wasn't his best overall.
Markill you're said all that needs to be said. My contribution to your excellent post is there's non so blind as those who cannot see. Too much time spent on a spent force.
markill wrote:To cause even more of a ruckus...One thing McIlorum needs to improve is defence!
We all love his hard hitting no nonsense attitude. But really, he misses too many tackles. He has one of the worst tackle success rates of any hooker in the league. By the way, Logan, Williams and Powell when playing as our back up hookers have much better tackle success numbers in the last two years.
I know the stat can be misleading, but you all must see it. For all the positives, Micky misses too many tackles. It's pointless being in opponents faces if they just bounce off you and keep going, or if you give a penalty away. That happens too much with Micky in the last couple of years. Sometimes he gets the crowd up or fires his teammates up, and that's great, but sometimes what's needed is to stop your man and wrap up the ball. If he was more selective about what was needed when, we might see a better performance. It might also save a bit more of him physically to do better with the ball, although I think he showed he has a bit more range and versatility in attack at times this year even though it wasn't his best overall.
...and yet we had the best defence in the league!!
You are bang on, stats can be misleading!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
Slim Jim wrote:Markill you're said all that needs to be said. My contribution to your excellent post is there's non so blind as those who cannot see. Too much time spent on a spent force.
Maybe we should sign Bob Beswick instead!! Yet we are blind!!
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
Firstly I agree MM did not have his best season last year and on form does not deserve to be in the England Squad. However, this thread has gone from MM needs to improve which again I agree with, as do all our players and all players throughout all sports, to saying he is not good enough, really?
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
The only person who.as ever mentioned signing BB is you your a slippery poster who is now trying to change the focus of the banner. Heading yet castigated other posters for allegedly doing what he is a past master at. For the record MM is not international standard ergo not Wigan standard Wigan have extended his contract for a further 4 years so what do I know about RL as you have pointed out before. Yet I feel the tide is turning Not wasting time on this topic.
Slim Jim wrote:The only person who.as ever mentioned signing BB is you your a slippery poster who is now trying to change the focus of the banner. Heading yet castigated other posters for allegedly doing what he is a past master at. For the record MM is not international standard ergo not Wigan standard Wigan have extended his contract for a further 4 years so what do I know about RL as you have pointed out before. Yet I feel the tide is turning Not wasting time on this topic.
Oh Jim, look back to who thought Bob was better than MM, it was clearly you, so if you think he is better why would you not want to sign him to replace MM?
Why am I changing the focus of the banner? You don't think MM is good enough and said those that do are blind, so I just suggested that you think Beswick is better which in my opinion makes you equally as blind!!
If you think Beswick is better than MM which you suggested on another thread, clearly you don't know much about RL.
'If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them.' - Wayne Bennett
