They pretty much did every time they went down our right with the ball. Sometimes when we had the ball too.

But as I don't like arguments, I will concede that Lee Smith's positioning was top drawer the first half on Saturday and I was astounded to see him moved to the wing.

I'll give you your due, you got one thing right. He was pretty much in the middle of the pitch when Australia played the ball near their right hand touchline.

Now would you like to give some thought - be brave, I know it will hurt - as to why he might have been defending that centrally? Start by looking at the positioning of the players on his left and go from there.

So not throughout and not constantly now then?

As to your second para, you're the first one to suggest that. Not sure why you would, but there you go.

Probably for the same sorts of reasons he came out of line at the wrong times on occassion. He was reading plays badly along with many of his team mates. As I would expect for a fullback playing centre against such a good team with a defensively weak 6 beside him.

How about I ask you a question - is it your assertion that Lee Smith was completely free from blame defensively throughout the first half?

You appear to be suggesting he has no responsibility for marshalling the defence on that side and that everything is dictated by people to his left. I played right centre, and I wouldn't have got away with that excuse with any coaches I played under.

Nope, that's an interpretation you've put on my posts, probably based as much on who I support as their content.

Have a look at how England defended when Australia had the ball on their right hand side of the field in that first 40 minutes. Have a look at how condensed the defensive line was, where all the players were lining up. You think condensing the defensive line that much was a unilateral decision taken by the players on the field.

If you had disregarded the team's defensive pattern and left a 15 yard gap on your inside, what do you think your coach would have said to you?

Peacock, Sinfield, Smith, Mcguire and Briscoe all made clear errors in their defensive positioning in the first half. I don't think any sensible poster has suggested otherwise.

He would have been too busy thrashing the players at fault to find time to criticise me for deciding not to leave the best player in the world half a pitch to run around in.

I'd be inclined to say rather a 15 yard gap on my inside left by others than a 30 yard gap on my outside left by me, with the latter gap housing the most dangerous player on the planet.

At the end of the day, the defensive pattern was daft, but to suggest Smith was somehow forced to abandon for mid-field for the bulk of the first half is equally daft. He was exerting no control whatsoever over what was happening on his side of the pitch. Probably because he's a blo*ody full back!!

Your point is a fair one. Its all very well bad mouthing Smith, but if he's the best we've got, then we have to work with it.

From my team's point of view (Sts), with gidley filling one centre, the other has been filled by both Eastmond and Gilmour, but before his injury, young Wheeler played a good run of games there and was quite impressive (when our season was going well). He's a stand off by trade but looked a very composed and capable centre. There's young Chris Dean who is a solid but unspectacular player who'll probably carve out a decent SL career now that the quota's tightening. Tyrer who's gone to Salford - he's struggled, but is still only 20 and could always find the try line. I have a felling he'll do ok in the long run, but England might be a long shot.

From England's point of view, I have to say I was very impressed by Bridge when I saw him play centre this year fro Wire. His play looked like that of a classic centre, he hit the gap outside his man well, and has an excellent step back. I never saw him troubled in defence and his a fair lump so would be ok from that point of view. For me - a better choice than Smith.

Those who mention Atkins? Well, i've been shocked at how bad his positional defence can be in the centre channel when I've seen him over the years. He's definately not the answer to plugging the defensive gaps.

Huddersfields youngsters confuse me - Lawrence and Cudjoe. They're always bigged up and look good when you see them, but the coach often seem to leave them out for somewhat more pedestrian looking foreigners (thinking about it, obviously Cudjoe's got Hodgeson keeping him out of his favoured position). Perhaps the giants fans could tell me exactly how good these guys are.

There does [iseem[/i to be more youngsters of note coming through in the backs. Welham at KR looks ok and Cas have got some decent backs in Shenton/Dixon/Owen; Ratchford at Salford, Tomkins and Ainscough at Wigan etc etc. It all goes back to taking the talent and turning it into a really top class player, rather than a pretty good one - unless we're just hoping for 7 paul newloves to come along at the same time (and even then we'd be ed for away internationals

).

You have to close the inside gaps, and if you're going to leave space, leave it on the outside. At least that way you can take away most of the support players and leave the attack only one way to go.

Seems an English RL thing to think good defence is staying out wide "on your man" and waving the opposition through the middle

Seems like a Richie thing to not realise that I am not advocating a centre standing on top of Inglis regardless of circumstance, I am simply advocating him being bright enough to realise that the opposition are ACTIVELY TRYING TO TEMPT HIM INFIELD TO LEAVE SPACE FOR INGLIS and be brave enough to resist the temptation to leave the sort of gaps the Aussies enjoyed strolling around in in the first half.

What you have to do as a defender is look where your colleague inside (inside being nearer the ball) is, and who he is covering. You then put yourself in position to cover the next man out. If you don't, if you stay wider, the opposition have a very easy break which will have support on either side.
Is that how you were suggesting Smith should have positioned himself?

He was in the squad but (we think) picked up an injury.
He stood out for some pretty good defence, he lacks a bit going forward but he wouldn’t have waved them through like Smithy did. His problem is staying fit, he’s big enough and good enough.

I am suggesting Smith's positional play was poor and led to problems.

You are suggesting it wasn't poor and that he was just doing what he had to do.

Not much point arguing over such polarised opinions, we all have our views on what went wrong.

Check my post of 16:16

What I have eversohelpfully done, is also explain why it was so, and why it was so for several players.
Which I thought was a better explanation than just claiming him to be a fullback.

I was actually just trying to find out what Code13 thought was the right position for a centre in defence.

You know that HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE gap Inglis kept running through...there.

Even if he was laying down in the hope of tripping Inglis up he would have been more use.

You prefer to see opponents break through the middle and score under the posts then? Why?

Whilst I agree with the point you are making, Byrne played 2 games this year, both at full back.

Give up. Objective views are in such a minority, they are indistinguishable amongst the drivel.

Smith, McGuire and Briscoe didn't do very well at all at covering the right side. Poor decision-making and coordination, lack of technique and lack of nous basically. However, ignoring the fact that England's right side defence started about halfway across the pitch and that whenever Australia gave the ball air to the left Inglis and co were in acres of space is doing those three a grave disservice.

The English defensive structure and in particular the positioning of the backrow was equally to blame. If you had Hodges, Hayne and Hindmarsh defending half the pitch against Slater, Inglis and whoever else, they'd be in trouble. Undoubtedly they'd do a better job than our three hapless heroes, but I suspect they'd leak at least a couple of tries. Hence that defensive structure not being something you'll ever see in the NRL.

And whilst I defend Tony Smith a lot - I feel he comes in for a lot of unnecessary flak - I do think that the responsibility for such a poor structure, and the failure to adjust it DURING the first half are down to him and to some extent some of the senior players. He obviously thought Australia could be sucked into a forward-oriented game, and was equally obviously wrong.

England is absolutely doomed whatever the position.

No, he should be screaming at his inside man to pull out pardon the pun). They teach it at school level, they teach it at amateur level, hell, even I know to do it. You look up, see where the opposition are set and move accordingly. I completely agree that the defensive strategy was wrong, but to put no blame on the wide markers is a bit apologetic. The only player on englands right who stuck to his man and marked his position was Briscoe. Mcguireand smith were consistently marking the same man.

That's the problem

we still have people not knowing the game, likely unqualified, teaching that at school and amateur level.
Yes, call your man out to cover the overlap, but whilst doing that close the gap inside. Don't just stand out wide. If that means everyone in a couple of spots, well better that and the opposition have to work to get outside them and are pushed to the touchline, than let them break up the middle with support either side. Always take your positioning of the teammate inside you.

P.S. I always find it's more effective to have the players on the side where you're over manned push the extra defenders away to where you're undermanned than have defenders on an undermanned side pull players across. When pulling players across, you're always asking a defender to move and leave someone else uncovered. What you should have is the winger or half on the overmanned side call to players, who are likely doubling up on an attacker or covering no one, to push across to where you're undermanned.

The fact is a similar list could be drawn up for every position.

Spot on.