Our head of PE was Joe Warham, and we only played Union (I went to Roundhay, so ex-grammer school etc...). I didn't even know who Joe was until I started going to watch Leeds when I was 15 and saw a photo of him in a match program.

Our school also had strong links to Yarnbury RU aswell so a lot of us played up there on a weekend!

It's always amazed me the number of schools who persisted with playing union, given that it is (or certainly was back in the 70s and 80s when scrums and rucking were less controlled) inherently more dangerous than league.

I don't think H&S was considered in the decision making.

That said, at the time I was a schoolkid if you came home from PE with an injury it was an accident and "one of those things" - my parents wouldn't have been straight on the phone to the education authority looking to screw some compo out of them.

I only participated in physical education when it was rugby league. Must of only done about 5 PE lessons in my last three years at school.

I would never have guessed

I see the same "well he's won lots of cups so must be ace" argument derided by all and sundry when used about Saints players underperforming for England is out in force.

I take no pleasure from any player playing poorly for England. I've spent thousands trasvelling the world watching us lose and would cheer 17 Wiganers to the rafters if they were wearing England shirts.

Problem is, the people defending such a clearly abhorrent display are just as daft as those revelling in it.

He was TERRIBLE and was anonymous against France too. He's a very lucky boy if he gets a crack on Saturday. But if he does he'll get my full support and the people who cheered when he got substituted and those who sang abuse at James Graham don't deserve to see an England team be successful.

Not going to slate Smith as he clearly should be England's full back, not in the centres.

Is that meant to be sarcasm or just hypocrisy, given your "contribution" on the VT?

I'm not slating him on the VT, I'm agreeing he was constantly out of position, which he was.

He read plays very badly all the first half. He shouldn't have been put in that position, but that doesn't alter the fact that he struggled massively.

My contribution to that thread is in response to a seeming inability of certain people to accept he was anything other than faultless.

You've not been looking on the VT? Every time I look at it I can hear the noise that I imagine Broadmoor would make if you set it on fire with all the doors still locked.

Where?

Saying he was constantly out of position isn't slating him?



Man, I would love to see how effusive you are with praise when someone plays well...

Who has defended McGuire's display?

I think you misunderstood me.

I was saying where league is available is where there is a club set up specifically because the pupils are interested in it. League is not taught as in class time.

Example been Brigshaw Comprehensive, one of the earlier posters mentioned Garforth just down the road. Brighshaw teaches Union in its lessons because it has to. But it has a RL training club out of shool, pupils prefer this, and Brigshaw has a team.

I think I'm with you...

I think more League would be played in many schools in RL areas instead of union if it were up to the kids to choose what they'd rather play rather than it be left up to the teacher. Union isn't compulsory is it? I don't think it's on the national curriculum yet. I think many PE teachers tend to come from a union background so that's why they choose to play union in schools. I suspect the RFU gives them plenty of backing in terms of resources too.

The first try and break we made in the 2nd half was from the Tomkins kick. That sparked us into life. What part of that don't you understand? I agree that Burgess, Ellis and Crabtree (and Sinfield who you've missed out for some reason) had excellent 2nd halves too, but I wasn't posting about who had good 2nd halves, just the first 'success' we had in the game... you know?...the thing that sparked us to life....

He said you were talking bollox, and then explained why. What part of that don't you understand?

The part I dont understand is the part where you say Tomkins sparked the team into life. I dont understand it because its bo!!ocks.
It was the forwards, who just before half time actually, decided to start playing which they hadnt done since the first Australia try.

I missed him out because I dont think he sparked us into life either. That doesnt mean I think he had a poor game. Quite the opposite. I also thought Tomkins was good in the 2nd half but that wasnt what I was talking about. The forwards, most notably, Burgess, Ellis and Crabtree really upped it and thats what gave us the space for Tomkins and Sinfield etc to do what they did.

Neither was I



Our first success in the game was just before half time when the forwards upped their game. That was what sparked us into life. Not the new Messiah.

I don't think you'll find one person on here that defended McGuire's performance.. we just don't agree with the slagging off by idiotic jealous inbread supporters of other clubs.

Do you? I don't, the rest of your post I couldn't agree more with.

As an ex-Garforth Comp student, I'd suggest in their case it was always down to pure wannabe elitism and snobbery on the part of the school - if they play Union they played the likes of the Leeds Grammar whereas they'd have had to play "lesser" schools of the type Garforth (despite being a Comprehensive) didn't want to be associated with!

there was a fair amount of it being thrown about, but I think it was just in an attempt to wind up the scousers, rather than being a genuine viewpoint

Danny McGuire has a fairly rare off day against the Aussies (by the way he wasn't the only one having an off day - you may or may not have noticed) and was one of the players that didn't improve much in the second half. This becomes the basis of a 19 page thread generally focused on the 'awfulness of Danny Mc Guire' which then turns into a traditional club v club fight.

Which is why I look at this site every day (don't often get that much time to post or develop an argument - sadly a bit too busy at the day job)

Sheer genuis.

If by some miracle we beat the 3rd Favourites this week (which will require the team at least getting back to the levels they play at for their clubs something that hasn't happened much if at all for nearly all the players since and including the World Cup). We should then be at least competitive against the Aussies - we will however still get our s tanned.

Yes we must play McGuire and we must play Tompkins and Eastmond, Myler - not yet ready.

Ive actually Just sat down and watched the whole game again for the first time since seeing it live, Mcguire had a poor game but doesnt deserve the vitriol that he has had, also Tomkins didn't start to play until around 65 minutes into the game so I cant see why he's being labelled as some kind of wonder kid.

I actually think we will do OK against the Kiwis but wholesale changes will not benefit us, this is the team I would play having watched the game again.

1. Smith
2. Briscoe
3. Eastmond
4. Shenton
5. Hall
6. Mcguire
7. Tomkins
8. Morley
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. Burgess
12. Ellis
13. Roby

14. Wilkin
15. Graham
16. Crabtree
17. Westwood


I dont usually advocate playing players out of position but I think Sinfield was excellent controlling the game from DH and ROby is a very strong runner and defender so they swap positions.

Im not a huge fan of Wilkin but he has a bit of utility value and the best we have in the squad for the 17th man IMO.

Burgess has to be on from the start and play as much of the 80 as possible, and someone please show him how to keep hold of the ball!

Crabtree is a great bench prop and he will be a bit of an unknown to NZ.

Grham will provide good impact from the bench aslong as he stops passing like a halfback when he gets the ball, he did this a number of times against Australia and it wasnt good IMO.