Are you saying that a Briscoe being taken off directly resulted in England scoring the points they did in the second half and had he of played the second half outside of Eastmond it would have been a whitewash??

You honestly dont think he would have done the same job or better than smith in the second half???

u really are uneducated arent u

Absolutely. The removal of Tom Briscoe removed the Aussie's option of repeatedly kicking behind him exposing his lack of pace to tackle him whilst he's on the back-foot, so the Aussie defensive line would have the momentum to prevent England from completing an effective exit set. The pattern would then be repeated until the Aussies built enough pressure to score.

Alternatively, the Aussies could take a chance form long range knowing that Tom Briscoe just does not have the pace to stop them.


No chance what-so-ever, no - for the reasons I have mentioned above.


You can't deal with the fact the hard evidence of the game today is proof that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth.

Irony-meter overload.

i want my £5 peter

I have started a topic on the virtual terrace to try and get a few unbiased views.... and how strange there dont appear to be many people who agree with you???

Obviously they are not the same level of intelligence as your good self

Ok.

Why do you think Tony Smith took him off at half-time?

To take Lee Smith out of the firing line would be a decent guess?

I can obviously see that changes needed to be made although I feel that smith should have gone as his display at centre was dire defensively.

Also in my opinion he did nothing on the wing that briscoe couldn't .

I think he was made a scapegoat

so he wouldn't have to drop lee smith and admit what a huge blob he dropped by picking him in the first place

to bring in eastmond... lee smith or danny maguire should of made way not tom but you just cant admit it...FACT!!!

it's easier for smith to drop a young lad and move his name sake than to drop one of his mates

One of the reasons yes.

Any other's?

Then there shows your lack of appreciation of how important the back-three are in the modern game of RL.

Although Smith made a mistake in picking Briscoe in the first place, the changes he made were spot on and vindicated by the 2nd half improvement.

You've finally shown yourself up. So the Aussies could not score long disctance tries if Fox had played











You really are a clown at times, the only reason we got near in the second half was the aussies had already won the game.

Of course they could have, but they would have been less likely had Fox played.

I like it how these deluded FC fans gob off without providing any analysis of the game. They simply repeat [i"Briscoe did nothing wrong"[/i - pathetic...

I strongly disagree, I personally would have left him on and switched him to his natural position of centre, mcguire needed the shepherds crook he was truly awful, and the team improved when sinfield went to hooker for the too slow roby.

I thought the better distribution gave us better ball retention and more go forward. We weren't on the back foot all the time and by stiffening up the centres we were less vulnerable All this had nothing to do with playing briscoe on the wing inho

I love the way these Rovers fans think the sun shines out of Fox's booty when he could not even make the 17



Smith and McGuire kept switching positions and ended up completely confused about where they should have been defending and left Briscoe completely isolated.

Briscoe did one thing wrong and that was his workrate was poor imo in terms of taking the ball up and he looked a bit shell shocked when the tries kept being run in.

Surely thats 2 things?

The second is hardly doing something wrong!

Why has this thread turned into a Fox v Briscoe debate?

Briscoe played today, Fox didn't. End of. Briscoe didn't get the support from his centre today. End of. The Aussies seemed to target that side in the first half, would they have done the same if Fox was playing? We will never know, (unless by some fluke we manage to get to the final, & Fox plays). My point is Fox & Briscoe are different players, they both have different strengths & weaknesses, they both deserve their England call up, they both will come away better players for the experience.

How or why this has turned into another ridiculous KR v FC thing, when we should all want England to do well is unbelievable.

Freezing on the stage?

okay.

26-0 down at half-time - do you think Tony Smith got the selection right?


Totally agree.


His ball recovery just wasn't up to scratch which resulted in an accumulation of pressure on which they capitalised.

So why in your opinion should he not be an international Centre or winger - In my opinion he can be a great centre and just because he has the 'mobility and strengh of a forward' does not mean he cant remain a back . And before you come back I will say Greg Inglis!!!!

is this the Peter Fox who is supposed to be the fastest man in league??