Issues with the current international series aside, you appear to have some personal issues with Tony Smith. Might I ask why?

The Kiwi side that GB beat - with the benefit of home advantage - was nowhere near as strong as the side that went on to win the World Cup. IIRC they had something like a dozen players missing for one reason or another, not something that hampered them at the WC.

Who benefits from that full round of club fixtures (well attended or otherwise)? The clubs.

And where does that benefit end up? In the pockets of the players.

A well attended international series puts money back into the development of the game at all levels. A relatively well attended weekly round (which basically means one where both Leeds and Wigan are at home, otherwise it's much less impressive) puts money in the hands of the players and the taxman.

Which should be a priority for the future development of the game in the UK?

nothing personal. never met him. i'm speaking as i see his record and the sides he produced. in 2004 i have given, and will continue to, give him 100% praise for that season. after that he seemed to change as a person and a coach. arrogance? over confidence? i don't know. i know he got rid of all the coaches and brought in yes men.
he had the world at his feet but somewhere along the line he changed .

and not for the better

You called him a pr1ck earlier.

Since 2004 he has won a WCC, GF, CC and a test series.

doesn't mean i have to like or rate him. sorry if this doesn't meet with your approval

I'm very liberal Tad, everyone is entitled to an opinion however wrong it is

Well we'll see, Ganson is reffing on Saturday now, so no excuses. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8326203.stmhere[/url

thats good. everyone should be enitled to an opinion mate

Typical Aussie ignorance.

At least the RFL/IRLF haven't done their usual convent girl impression and just bent over and allowed the Aussies to appoint their own referee(s).

World Cup Side.

Hohaia; Perrett, Mannering, Ropati, Vatuvei; Marshall, Fien; Cayless, Leuluai, Blair, Fa'alogo, Harrison, Smith Interchange Luke, Eastwood, Rapira, Manu.

Game 3 v GB 2007

Sam Perrett, Shontayne Hape, Clinton Toopi, Paul Whatuira, Taniela Tuiaki, Lance Hohaia,Thomas Leuluai, Roy Asotasi, Dene Halatau, Fuifui MoiMoi, Simon Mannering, Frank Pritchard, Jeremy Smith.

Replacements: Greg Eastwood, Louis Anderson, Sam Rapira, David Faiumu.

I dont think you can really compare the two do you so why keep banging on about a win vs the weakest side ever to tour from NZ?

Is it supposed to be news that the teams have changed from one year to the next? Particularly after losing.
Quote the England team last years World Cup and compare it to the team from last week. Does that mean the Kiwi WC win doesn't count?

The teams are forced to change, however you are missing the point, the clear difference is that for the WC Final NZ had their full strength side out.

Against GB the team was almost a second string side and in some cases third choice.

Is that difficult to understand?

Do you think a New Zealand first string (the WC side) would have lost to GB 3-0?

That's always the case RR. It's very rare to get a 1st choice team at this late stage of the season. What's the threshold of player stability for a result to count?

Are you discounting last years WC because the teams have changed since?

Does anyone else find the idea of Thierry Hallibut reffing a match between England and Australia terrifying?

Nothing wrong with Saint Steve - especially if he`s consistant with the biff rulings (I have the image of him telling JP to deal with himself

).

As for the question in the thread, who is for the question in the thread, who is/has been qualified, in the opinion of fans, to manage our international team? I can@t thinkof anyone who has had that particular confidence.

string New Zealand side.

Why would I discount last years WC?

We are talking about you giving top billing to a series which to one country (by their own admittance) meant very little, in fact enough to leave key personnal at home and dip into SL to throw a side together, a team that half the side would not get close to a second string New Zealand side.

You can not score GB's greatness based on that series and only a fool would do so.

You would discount it for the same reason you are discounting the 2007 series win. The team changed the year after.
Where and when did NZ say that losing an international series meant very little to them?

Nope, he's no worse than Ganson and at least he won't be open to accusations of bias whatever the result.

The Aussies have had a hit out with Ganson in charge already, they know what to expect and can adapt to the way he referees the game. They won't concede as many penalties on Saturday as they did against the Kiwis.

I'd rather have neutral referees for all games than start with neutral refs then change the policy because one side doesn't like/rate the options available.

The only surprise is that the Aussies didn't insist on Shayne Hayne.

You are describing a Rolls Royce to a Mini Metro, the difference being that the side in 2007 was not in anyway competitive as GB rattled up 44 points in one game!!

Come on, its not that difficult to follow that comparing a near full strength side to that of a severely weakened one is not a reasonable argument.

Both the WC winning side and this side are very very strong packed with ability and some serious grunt, clearly you think the 07 side had similar attributes.

England will be fine with Ganson in charge. I don't think Australia is near St Helens.

If your criteria for discounting the opposition is that GB scored a lot of points against them, you're never going to count a good win.

WTF, my criteria is one that allows me to form an opinion on a side that includes a number of third choice players and one that gets bitch slapped by a GB side who pretty much did as they pleased.

Do you really think a recent competitive NZ side would get a 44 point touch up by GB? Come on Richie, you are attempting (not for the first time) to defend the indefensible.

From what I`ve seen of him I`d have to disagree, completely incapable of controlling a big game at the moment.
As for accusations of bias, why would you worry about that? The track record of Aussie whingeing mean that`s innevitable. And if it does get to that a few crying Aussies will just be the icing on the cake.

So do we discount GB/England performances that don't include what you personally don't consider first choice players, if we get beaten?

A recent competitive side did get spanked by GB. Why do you have such a hard time accepting success? You had problems with it with the Rhinos, and now your country.

Ganson has a history of bias when officiating GB/England, it's probably why the Aussies are comfortable with the appointment and why England's job just got even harder.

St Helens will also come to dread his name in games just as Leeds did with Holdsworth.