and even more amazing neither of them are from Castleford.
Proving that bespeckled, carrot topped, milk bottle skinned hillbillies can naturally occur outside of their natural breeding ground.




just joking

Name added.

I concede the point.

Kirk Dixon and darryl Goulding would've walked all over Inglis and Hodges and gotten us a victory on Saturday.

Dear me.

If that is based on the principle Simth is off to Union, fair enough. If it is based purely on ability then give your head a shake.

I've no problem with Smith going off to Union - he's a professional rugby player and if that is where he can get the best deal, then he is only exercising a right that Rugby League was founded to grant (I know it was more complicated than that, but humour me).

I think he is a decent and versatile back - ideal for a touring party, because he can cover 1-5, but I've never thought he looked very special. the alternatives [imight[/i not have been much better on Saturday, but they could not have been much worse with hindsight. I don't want to slag him off particularly, but he should be dropped or at very least switched to the wing.

Bridge isn't much of a replacement unfortunately and T.Smith must have a [ireally[/i low opinion of other English centres if he was seriously considering O'Loughlin there. Eastmond would get the nod for me.

Of those not in the squad, I can of a good few I'd rather see in the centres for the New Zealand game than Smith - [inow[/i

The only reason O'Loughlin played at centre in the warm up game was to try and get him 80 minutes - a number of other forwards had also either missed out on or taken little part in the playoffs and needed game time, so Todd Flanders got shifted into the centres so everyone could be accommodated.

I would say no, I even have said before the squad was picked that Briscoe wasnt quite ready, even though he didnt do anything wrong I stad by ths, unfortunatley there was no other options on the wing.

I personally didnt think Yeaman had a bad season for Hull, he showed at times he was back to previous form and this is with no decent ball off the halfbacks. He is also very good defensivley andif he wasnt injured would have done a decent job at centre.

I acually rate Lee Smith, but he should have played at FB or on the wing.

Jason Crookes will mke an impact next season and will b selected in next years four nations squad

Lawrence and Cudjoe certainly wouldnt have looked out of place in the english backs at all on Saturday, in fact I would suggest they would actually have been in the right position...rather than 15m in field leaving their winger to stop a 3 on 1.

You mean they'd have stayed out wide to let the opposition break up the middle?

You probably thought the same about Scott Moore aswell.

I dont remember the aussies breaking up the middle on Saturday, through the strangely empty centre spot a few times, but never the middle.

Well there was already one mediocre hooker out there, so yes, Moore would have fitted right in.

Of course they didn't break through the middle. That's where our defence was, rather than out wide.
Just trying to establish what you think the "right position" is.

Are you trying to argue that Smith was in the right position in defence throughout the first half?

Would have been fun to hear many of the Leeds fans had Pryce put in a performance akin to Smith or McGuire last week. Have a funny feeling he wouldn't be getting the same level of patriotic backing . . .

You know, I think he is...maybe he thinks Smith is a second row or hooker?

So he should have said "f*ck where the rest of the team inside me are standing, I'm going to stay right out here where Greg Inglis is. If that leaves a gap you could slide a bus through sideways on my inside shoulder, that's not my problem"?

Anyone who fails to grasp where the deficiencies in England's defensive strategy were for the first forty minutes on Saturday has no place trying to discuss the finer points of the game.

No he should actually have been in his OWN position, the rest of the team's defence made the aussies go wide, when the did they found an enourmous gap where Smith should have been

Something he was guilty of it the World Cup too...

and what is that position?

Lee Smith was out of position because if you watch the game he goes flying out the line trying get an interception and misses by about 10 metres every time, leaving Briscoe on his own against the best centre in the world, the NRL's top try scorer on the wing and probably a second rower too.

For the whole of the half?


There wasn't a single player on either team in the right position in defence throughout the first half.

Presumably you think his OWN position was man marking his opposite number? Watch the game back - if he had stood face to face with Inglis there would have been a twenty yard gap on his inside shoulder.

England's defensive strategy was to push the Australians onto one side of the field then condense in, expecting the Aussies to try and batter their way through the middle.

Obviously nobody had pointed out the speed and accuracy with which Lockyer and Thurston can pass a ball from right to left. The ball moves faster than the man, particular if you fix the inside defenders with decoy runners. All the Australians had to do was keep their width on the left hand side and use ball movement to outflank England's defence.

He left a gap the size of a bus for Inglis to run through anyway so what's your point? I'd rather he left a gap for Josh Hannant to be honest. Fact is he was reading plays badly, not being some mid-pitch saviour for the forwards as seems to be your interpretation.

He was out of position. Constantly, for whatever reason. I'm amazed that doesn't seem clear to you.

Constantly? Throughout?
Australia should have scored every single play the ball