In all honsty Richie I think you're really labouring a point.

Martin Johnson has to name a squad today knowing that he has 20 injuries to his squad. Given that this is the case then whichever touring side gives us a humping will not take as much pleasure in doing so had they been playing an undoubted first choice 15.

When the Kiwis came to the UK they brought what they had already declared to be an injury ravaged side with some other serious omissions. To have beated that side they brought, whilst commendable is no indicator of where we are relatively speaking because we already knew it was not their best 17. To infer that it was is just plain silly.

It was their best 17 available.
It wasn't their best 17 possible, but then you never will get that.

Interesting how many are willing to dismiss our success because of weaknesses in the opposition, but not our failures because of weaknesses in our own team.

Don't get me wrong, you can only beat what is in front of you. But let's do it another way. Leeds success in the Challenge cup came at the expense of all the big teams in the competition who came before us in our march to Wembley. London IIRC had Steele Retchless snatch a last gasp win at Cas to take them there. I feel wholly justified in celebrating that win as a result .

Warrington this year won the thing having defeated the might of York and Fev before negotiating the banana skin of KR then beating Wigan. Did they deserve to win, yes they did, are they the Challenge Cup champions, yes they are. Did they beat the form teams in the country to get there and win it? No they did not. Doesn't take away from a fans pleasure at seeing it happen but you wouldn't describe Warrington as the best side in the country off the back of it.

Not sure what your point is there? Do you give a different value to the Challenge Cup each year according to the run-in the winners had?

It has never been used to define the best team in the country.

You are making yourself look silly now but that is your perogotive.

If you thinking beating a severly understength NZ side is as clear an indicator of performance and the kudos that comes with beating a near full strength side then you go for it.

I really cant be bothered bashing my head against the wall.

It`s not like you to use conjecture to prove a point.

I don`t like the way he referees sometimes, but surely the English players wilｌ　べべってｒすいてｄ地おてゃｔ

Ａｎｄ　ｎｏｗ　Ｉ‘ｍ　ｒｅａｌｌｙ　ｈａｖｉｎｇ　ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍｓ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｊａｐａｎｅｓｅ　ｋｅｙｂｏａｒｄ．．．．

意儀ヴぇ鵜ｐ

that's a good point

At the risk of sounding like I’m repeating myself (which I am) – we will NEVER be as competitive as the Australians as long as hundreds of locals are spending thousands of dollars in the restaurants, bookies, on the roulette tables or poker tables, in the pokies or over the bars in every amateur Rugby League club in the country, every night of the week.

Their players have been coached every other night by professional, full time coaches since they were ten years old, our u11’s meet once a week and get coached by some kid’s dad.

Yeah but you know that kids dad walks around thinking

....and if you're going to qualify out every success......

I conjectured that sending Morley off in seven seconds (or was it twelve seconds) at the JJB wasn't it(?) proof enough that his bias does GB/England no favours and yet when Michael Crocker gets stuck in to Brian Carney(?) later in the same match the 'captains can sort it out.'

The current Kiwi side is also not the strongest available - Asotasi, Vatuvei, Mannering and others would all have been in the squad if fit. I can understand arguing that GB beat an understrength Kiwi team, but TBH that's NZs problem, not ours - just as it is if Leeds hammer an understrength Sts say. We could - and should - have beaten Aus in 2003 when they sent the weakest squad I've ever seen (they had problems in the centres similar to England's today). I doubt anyone at all would have complained if we'd won the series. Except the Aussies.

As for Smith, as coach, my own opinion is that he's trying to find a forumla that works other than stick it up the jumper and keep it tight a la Noble and Waite before him. That means exposing the side in ways that those coaches never really did. He's trying to get England to play more like a club SL side, but for whatever reason he's really struggling to get the team to gel. It certainly doesn't help if the much vaunted pack plays like a bunch of individuals rather than as a group.

As for selection, I'd have gone for Pryce/Senior in the centres as well. I don't care if Pryce hasn't looked that grerat this year - we are desperatly short of big athletic backs, and Pryce and Senior are about the only two who fit the bill. Both could hopefully do a reasonable job containing their opponents, and both would give the opposition something to think about when they get the ball. Lee Smith wouldn't scare Inglis/Hodges in a million years.

The other selection quandry is Sinfield. Take him out and you lose the only decent goalkicker and long-range field kicker we have. However, he's ridiculously lightweight for an international forward, and you either have to build the whole attack around him - which slows things down but brings structure - or get him to play more of a running role than he does for Leeds. Personally, if either halfback had a good kicking game I wouldn't have Sinfield in the side at all.

Is Tony Smith the right man for the job? Maybe! Maybe not.

In 4 years at Leeds he did what no other coach had done for 32 years....TWICE.

Is he a tw@? Probably! His brother is for sure so no doubt he is too.

Do I give a f*** if he's a tw@. NO. He did well for Leeds and Not if he makes England competitive either (and going within 10 points of the winners in the 2008 world cup is competitive if you ask me. Australia didnt get THAT close)

I just dont get that supposed Leeds fans think the man who brought us our first title in 32 years then another within 4 years is a crap coach.

You're laughable!

It's a shame I couldn't finish my post yesterday but the Japanese computer I was using decided to switch to Japanese characters.
i thought you might bring up the Morley incident. Morley deserved a red card, he nearly took the guy's head off and was lucky he only made partial contact or Kearns would have been really hurt..
Ganson can be a little inconsistant, but biased just doesn't seem fair to me. He got the Morley decision right, maybe he got anotherone wrong. He has indicate already this tournament that he will allow some sortiing out from the forwards so it's up to our pack to step up.
However, if we do have a fight or two and he starts carding England players then I'll be prepared to consider I was wrong.

Obviously the rlfans server doesn't like Japanese.

i was only swearing anyway.

You dont say Einstein.



With the best group of players Leeds have ever had (his record should have been better - he managed to fook up countless opportunities), shame his record at Huddersfield also sucked, maybe that had something to do with how poeple see him.



Is he, isnt he, that is the question, I know from hearing first hand what players thought of him, he is an arrogant .



Great WC performance then.









At times I honestly belive Leeds succeeded due to the mentality of the players on the pitch and in spite of what was sat in the stand.



Indeed.

the jury is still out on Smith at international level, he is a proven great coach but if we fail yet again this year i could see him walking, Of his own accord.

His record at Huddersfield helped him get the Leeds job, so I'd say that you're the only person who would describe that as a sucky record.

Two SL titles, plus a GF appearance, plus a CCF appearance. Leeds hadn't won the title in 20 odd/30 odd years(?). He then went to Warrington and won the CC, something they hadn't won in 20 odd years.

That's an excellent record, and only an idiot would deny that.



No Leeds or Warrington supporter should give a **** if he's arrogant. Coaches who deliver GF and CC wins have that right.



But Smith set the mentality of the players. Didn't Adamson say that he didn't enjoy the 2004 season because every week the mentality was obsessed with winning the cvhampionship?

It's not just the Morley incident and as I intimated if that was worthy of a straight red so was Crocker later in the same match for me.

Ganson IMO leans in favour of the Australians in these encounters, he always has.

The shame is he could afford to bend over backwards and England would still struggle but he won't, he never does.