Give the kid a break. He's done well in a position he's not suited to. It's not like he'll face Souths every week.

Swift was the only player to make over 100m against Souths.

I think he's a better winger than Makinson was at his age.

He's quicker off the mark than Makinson. More elusive, too.

But Makinson seems faster over the longer distance. Tommy's a better defender (both under the high ball and in the tackle), finisher and he's also reliable at full back.

To be honest, I thought Tommy was a goner the season before last. I just didn't think he was big enough. It's still a problem. But it's been offset by his finishing which is peerless.

There are a couple of things SL sides can do much better that don't need better athletes etc. One is cut down the errors. It really makes me cringe at times watching SL sides or the national team against the Aussies, because the error rate is dreadful. The stats might not show it, but its the unforced errors that are the biggest problem (particularly dropping the ball on contact) and the position on the field when it happens. Its not by accident that time and again our teams cough the ball up close to our own line but the Aussies don't. its because its punished ruthlessly in the NRL, and simply isn't in SL. But even with that, all clubs and players could do better with hard work.

Another is the kicking game. A full time pro halfback ought to be able to do far better than aimlessly kick the ball into the full backs arms every time, or make aimless attacking kicks (also requires the outside backs to train more as well but you get my point). Do SL halfbacks not train at this?

It should be remembered that Souths revamped their entire threequarter line last year. In 2013 they had a big pack, Greg Inglis and Reynolds' kicking game. Last year most of the 2-5 was new - big, strong and (Tuqiri apart) quick). Because when it came to the crunch in 2013 they simply didn't have enough points in them (and in fact the Dogs team they faced in the final had exactly the same problem out wide). As has been said, the chances are they'll lose more players over the next couple of years as the young backs demand pay rises. But they were no more dominant last year than the Roosters the year before.

I'd also add that if anything people here claim that the NRL is more robotic than ever. What you see with Souths cutting loose is that the robotic play actually enables the off the cuff play to be more effective, as the supposedly "robotic" players have the ability to time and make passes under pressure more reliably than otherwise.

Tommy has been given 3 years to develop an edge to his game. Don't get me wrong, Tommy M has grabbed the opportunity with both hands and is one of the top 5 wingers in the country now, and certainly the best finisher, but I think people forget he spent years being drip fed into the team as he developed, I think it would be foolish to not grant the same to Swift. His defence has already improved beyond recognition from this time last year, and I think he'll really benefit from being outside Turner this year.

He's prone to a silly mistake once a game at the moment which he needs to work on cutting out. But I wouldn't want us wasting cap space to replace him just yet.

He's a better winger than tommy with the ball at this current time. Tommy looked way out his depth against Souths with the ball.

Bateman made 160 metres and 60 tackles in the game

Faz around 150 metres and 40+ tackles

Clubb 128 metres and 28 tackles

Joel Tomkins made only 80 metres in comparison.

We made too many errors but our go forward was fine apart from a couple of the props.

Tommy is much more reliable, less error prone and a sublime finisher in a yard of space. 3 years ago he wasn't. Tommy struggled against Souths because we couldn't find him an inch of space, let alone a yard. He is still far to lightweight for carrying the ball up, but again, there's really no team in SL that make his cons outweigh his pros.

Really good post.

I found it interesting to see Reynolds out on the pitch long before both teams came out, practising his kicking short and long. It's the sort of work ethic embodied by Cooper Cronk as well, and goes to explain why we lag behind in that department.

If you are a full time pro surely practising your game is just as, if not more, important than spending hours in the gym. The kicking of the Super League teams at the week end was woeful in comparison with the NRL teams. Marshall gave a master class against Wire for further example.

I worry about how much ball work Wigan did in pre season. I read a comment somewhere saying it was weeks in to pre season before they got out on the field with a ball. That's crazy IMO! Yes they need to be fit but there has to be a balance.

At times this season we've played like we've never seen a ball!

That's not that surprising, to be honest. The first few weeks are just about getting everyone fit and strong; pre-season is pretty much the only time of the year it's possible for players to gain size/strength (in season at best they'll just maintain), so it needs to be emphasised. It's the same in Australia from what I've read, and it's no coincidence that with them having a longer pre-season they are much fitter and stronger than us.

No reality check for me. It was a glorified friendly - let's not kid ourselves - against easily the best team in world rugby. Coupled with the fact that we didn't even play badly, and I am not worried in the slightest. I still think we are the team to beat in SL, and I am happy we came through what was a bruising match with no serious injuries.

People getting worked up over it, have a word with yourselves.

If anything, the game will have done the kids a world of good. They won't come up against monsters like that many times in their careers, and to see how good they are can only help our kids in the long run. Percival did his standing no harm, as did Walmsley. In fact, I can see both now being targeted by NRL sides. Luckily for us, Turner had a poor game...

I've disputed this robotic tag for years. It was the same at Wigan under Maguire.

When it's done with precision and pace it's fantastic to watch and difficult to defend against.

I was at the Wigan and Souths training session last week and it was good to watch the effort put into getting those "robotic" plays to work. Maguires teams have a great work ethic and it'll only be a matter of time before he gets the NSW and Australia jobs.

Your "go forward" is a function of your handling - not your forward power. It was exactly the same in the Grand Final. You made plenty of yards - but very few through the channel 10m either side of the centre spot.

Guys like Farrell and Bateman are very adept at scything through gaps on the edge of the defence. But when the opposition pattern is sound and it comes down purely to brute force traction (such as clearing your own line in heavy conditions against physical packs) neither is going anywhere.

This is why I don't see Farrell as a genuine GB second row. There are no holes in the Australian edge defence. And he's not big enough to worry them through the middle.

It's precisely the same problem we had when Millward decided he didn't need big props, opting instead to go for mobility.

To be honest, I don't think Swift will play three consecutive years on the wing. Either he'll move inside or he'll leave.

Playing devil's advocate - why should players spend a greater proportion of time practicing kicking when yards are so easy to come by SL?

A side challenging for the title might only play six or eight games a season in which territory is absolutely crucial. Most of the time they can rely on their opponents to hand them the very same opportunities a good kicking game will produce.

But you said Bateman's quick feet got him nowhere and Farrell got neutralised which those stats would suggest is untrue. They made roughly 300 metres worth of forward ground between them regardless of running in a straight line or hitting holes on the edge to gain ground.

Both had top games and both are two of the best backrowers in superleague. Good enough for international level? I think so but even if not they're just about the best we have so we don't have much choice.

Just to play devils advocate you could say that Souths didn't fall for the scoot from dummy half and just defended the "massive" Saints pack with ease. As such Saints didn't have the passing game to get on the outside.

Saints have a big pack, but even they looked small in comparison to the Souths front 6. Amor in particular looked very small.

Interesting to see that Barcelona are smashing City atm. Wonder if people think there is a gulf in class between La Liga and the Premier League?

There is between Barca and Real Madrid compared to the English teams. It's as big as the top NRL clubs verses any of ours.

Only difference is the likes of City, United, Arsenal etc have no excuses unlike the superleague clubs.

2-1 Id hardly 39-0.

Hopefully the new SL format will encourage more teams to compete in more games. Salford apart (showing classic signs of a hastily assembled side) there does seem to be grounds for hope on that score.

I do understand that its human nature for many people to "get by" rather than keep trying to improve, but there are plenty of examples of individual players who clearly put in more work on parts of their game than others. I'd say Graham and Peacock in the forwards, and going back the likes of Edwards (IMO a fairly ordinary player who made himself good through hard work) and Hanley are exactly the sort of attitude we need more of.

As an aside, I think people sometimes underestimate the physicality of the NRL compared to SL. Souths for a couple of years, the Roosters with SBW (particularly 2013) and Manly for a number of years are brutal sides to watch, as well as having speed and skill. Its not just sheer size either. St George have got what many consider to be the weakest pack in ther NRL, but Warrington didn't walk all over them as many sides did last year.

It's impossible to have a great set of forwards AND a great set of backs under the salary cap these days.

And no team has ever won SL without a very good or excellent pack.

This. As I said to a few friends after the game, Super League is the NFL Europe to the NRL's NFL. The NRL is so far advanced that it sets the standard to aim for throughout the game. I think it's safe to say that will probably remain the case for the rest of my life. It's also why I agree with Russell Crowe's opinion that club footy is the way to grow the game. RL has intense rivalries and coupled with a tremendous product on the field, it can sell. The NRL is the flagship of our game and if that grows it will have a knock on effect for us because, entertainment wise, Super League is a five star product comparable with the best of any other sports. As long as it remains entertaining i.e. professional, that will always be the case.