Well, he covered for Longy when his jaw was broken so he got about 6 to 8 weeks consecutively. He's not yet shown whether he can organise around the park though. But Sinfield looked good in that respect when he took on the mantle during the second half. We only need one person to do that job and if he does it again on Saturday then that will release Eastmond and Tomkins to play their natural game. I think having two players on the pitch for the full 80 dodging and weaving, throwing good passes, fielding neat kicks here and there, could be (if used properly) a very good way of screwing with the opposition. If we can't fell them with our big men then getting them lurching here, there and everywhere sounds like the next best plan.

As for Graham and his passing: that is the kind of prop he is. He is an offloading prop. He made one boo-boo on Saturday with his forward pass, for which he will no doubt still be kicking himself, but Graham has the ability to split the defence with his passes so I wouldn't take that part of the game away from him. He is also a grafter and not an impact prop so he is better on there at the outset to grind down the big men and then our big men can get on and smash 'em (or does that only happen in my fantasies?

)

[url=http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/rugby-league-headlines/England-coach-Smith-Lay-off.5792491.jpSmith on McGuire[/url

Danny Mcguire,

Danny Mcguire was the best half back on the field at any stage of the game

the reason being, Eastmond and Tomkins played so far wide in the time they were on the pitch together they cant really be called half backs (and for the rest of the game bar that 15 mins or so, Tomkins did nothing bar trying to throw 20 metre passes when it was clearly the wrong choice)

we simply cannot play 80 minutes with no half backs to speak of and a loose forward playing hooker,

im not sure why we dont play all four together

our best showing this year was when all four where on the pitch, imo the best showing we had in the WC we had all Mcguire, Sinfield, Burrow and Price on the pitch

if we need to try something different, lets do it,

lets go

Smith (or S Briscoe, depends what you want from your FB, i think we need Smiths returns, and if there is a game to take the risk its this one)
Hall
Ellis
Shenton
Briscoe (or if yo have gone S Briscoe at FB, Lee Smith)
Mcguire
Tomkins
Peacock
Roby
Graham
Westwood
Burgess
Sinfield

Eastmond
Carvell
Morley
Crabtree

Eastmond has great impact, he can come on for Roby and basically play where he wants, run around and get involved ducking and diving and causing trouble, have him playing as a 2nd stand off in the Centre position outside Ellis who is our best defender

Move Sinfield to hooker and Burgess to Loose forward, and have all of Mcguire directing the play as scrum half, and Tomkins and Eastmond causing problems with their running game either side of the field

that way we have lots of creativity but dont lose any size

Fixed the typo..doh.

It's funny, but we talk about lack of centres now, but I've just seen Keith Mumby played 4, for all three tests against Australia and NZ on the '84 tour. Jeezus.

He was the worst player on the field at any stage of the game. McGuire is the player who should be dropped. He won't be, but he should be.

OBSESSED

The 82 results were down to a combination of things, notably the isolation of the game in England (although the likes of Steve Norton and Topliss had played in Oz), the fact that a generation of what had been very good players in the early 70s were hanging around without being pressured for their position for club or country (see the likes of Steve Nash as an example), and the simple fact that the game in Oz jumped forward about 20 gears, including the production of some genuine all-time greats like Pearce, Lewis, Kenny, Sterling, Meninga and Grothe.

One of the things that is never really credited IMO is the performance of GB on the 84 tour. Yes, we lost all the tests, but didn't get hammered and were actually quite competitive. That was one heck of a turnaround in just 2 years. Probably the biggest disappointment to me was 86 - GB taklked the talk and had some good players around but were blown apart.

Anyway, re McGuire, I expect he'll get another go against NZ, but he may well be on his last chance for England.

As for Roby and Sinfield switching roles, I can think of far worse ideas. Probably because I had the same one myself.

If Roby plays 13 he's basically just a very small back row forward. It makes no real sense, you play Wilkin instead surely?

Smith's spot on and booing an individual England player off the pitch is a f'ing disgrace. I know the game was played in Lancashire but even them lot should know better.

Also, is Smith looking to keep Eastmond as an impact sub?

Roby does spell a bit at 13 for saints though (when him and KC are on the pitch). I'd also say Roby's size is deceptive - he's probably both quicker and stronger in impact than Wilkin.

If we want a big strong 13 we could use Ellis or Burgess.

Roby seemed a bit lost when he was still out there and Sinfield was playing acting half - just following Sinfield around the pitch as if we were supposed to have a queue of players to go to acting half.

Roby is small for a forward but he does seem to be able to punch above his weight at this level.

I dont think anyone could argue if he was dropped, he was poor.

But then lot's of virtual coaches on rlfans have been bleating about not having the same half back combo for a full test for x amount of years?

Tom Briscoe, Lee Smith and Danny McGuire have all been dropped for the game v NZ on Saturday.

Fox, Bridge and Eastmond into the starting line-up with Wilkin onto the bench, just to flesh out that snippet of info.

And then he drops him.

Don't understand any of the logic used there.

Reminds the player that the coach still rates him, even though he sees better options available for the next game.

Dropping McGuire and Smith takes some of the heat off the coach too by responding to public opinion.

True, but why tell a story about "having a bad day at the office" and then effectively drop him for the rest of the tournament (injuries not withstanding)? He was Smith's first choice 6 or he wasn't. If he wasn't then he shouldn't have played against Australia. What does Smith need to know about McGuire that he doesn't already know from coaching him for 4 years? He's played against Australia before and NZ before, so if he's going to drop him after "one bad day", why pick him at all?
You also have to give the halves more than one game together. It would be the last positions I would mess around with. Logically you would also have to ask why Smith's previous first choice 7 hasn't had a look in so far.

For me Smith's exclusion makes more sense.

Just realised Smith has also left Peacock in the second row. Now if we are talking about correcting mistakes....

I agree with all of that. Thats why I was annoyed with his selection of Myler for the France game. We should have started as we meant to go on with our first choice half backs from the beginning to the end of the tournament. Its only 3 games or 4 at most. This tournament ws not the place to be going swapping players around, especially at half back. Smith has had all season plus the England training sessions to decide on his half backs. Pick them then stick with them, whoever they might be.

It's not one bad game though, is it?

McGuire - like a lot of the players who were at the World Cup IMO - went into this competition in the last chance saloon.

He hardly set the world on fire against the French and had a mare against the Aussies. Two games in, two ordinary (and that's being generous) performances was hardly going to be enough to retain his place with the likes of Tomkins and Eastmond snapping at his heels.

This was my post on the Saints site.

"Probably the right team, but I'm not sure about Peacock in the second row.

McGuire, Smith and Tom Briscoe came in for a lot of (mainly justified) criticism after Saturdays defeat, but they were not helped by having Peacock in the second row, who IMO is not quick enough for that position particularly in defense.

I would have had Westwood in the second row, Peacock starting and Morley on the bench."

Many thought he was the only functional half back we had at the WC, and one of the better performers from the squad. If you apply those criteria above then Peacock, Morley, Wilkin, Roby should all be dropped as well.

Why was Myler dropped after the French game? He played pretty well.

3 games, 3 different half back combinations - no injuries.

That's your opinion. I thought - two close range tries, one of which was laid on a plate by Sinfield apart - he was pretty poor against the French as were most of the side.

It might be an opinion, but he did very little wrong. He took his chances - the first try took some scoring - and defended well. And I agree, most of the side were pretty poor, so why single out your previous first choice 7 for the axe? Especially as we won the game fairly comfortably in the end.

3 different half back combinations in 3 games doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless someone is injured.

SCAPEGOAT springs to mind