With all this talk of the speed of half backs, does anybody actually have any timings of the current crop over a distance compared to the likes of Burrow and Mcguire ten years ago? A significant difference may be that the relative speed of other players has increased more than the backs. Most people acknowledge the pace of the game has increased across the park so to keep the same speed difference between backs and forwards would not be possible.

When Mcguire and Burrow first made their appearances, they were still playing against other players who will have started their careers who started as semi-pros with other occupations and even much more recently (and still probably going on) we have seen full time players become full time profesionals. I would be supprised if there were more than a handful of players now who havent come up through the ranks who have had to take on other jobs to make ends meet.

Over the years backs have got relatively slower or others have got relatively faster and the game has once again reached a point where all half-backs can no longer rely on speed as much as they have previously been able to do and over the next five years we will see another shift in the way the game is played.

I accept that pace is not the only attribute but it helps make up for other shortcomings eg for Burrow. At the age of 16 Sinfield clearly had so many other qualities that in the English game more than made up for any lack of pace. I've yet to see Lilley exhibit those same qualities. But he could develop those in time.
I hope he does.
Sinfield also had the size to stand up to bigger players something that Lilley given his stature can't possess.

Sutcliffe is only 21. Most HBs are illegible until their mid-20s. Thurston could only grunt at that age. Give the kid some time, I can't believe the criticism of his diction on here from keyboard warriors. He'll sound like Stephen Fry after a couple of seasons. If you know what I mean.

I was not being critical of his written word or his diction. When the likes of teenagers like Lilley and Golding have been interviewed on TV they have come over as alert, quick and bright. I did not see this from Sutty at the touchscreen as Jon Wells had to work hard to get anything from him.

FFS! Really? You're critical of how a young rugby league player comes across on TV?

On a different topic, I was particularly upset at how Handley's shorts didn't seem to fit him snugly enough.

Also, why oh why don't our players wear those super pink boots?

Sinfield had one good game against the Aussies at hooker in 2001. I think the Aussies had just got off the plane after cancelling the tour a few weeks prior? Mike Forshaw was scrum half IIRC... says it all really.


Sinfield has never been international class. You know that deep down even if it is difficult to acknowledge because in doing so, it is seen as disrespectful to a Rhinos legend playing at the level of Super League.

We've had poor international sides for as long as I can recall but at least some of our players have made an international impact... Schofield, Hanley, Graham, Burgess, Sculthorpe, Fielden (until he was chinned by Mason), etc.

Presenting the bloke with a Golden Boot for skippering England to a series win against Wales and France was embarrassing at worst and a joke at best. Some proprietor of League and Union magazines wished to flog a few thousand more of his stock.

When that critical moment arrived with just a few minutes to go in a World Cup semi final at Wembley, Sinfield as skipper, organiser and tactical kicker bottled it. He couldn't handle the pressure. And I'm not talking about gifting Shaun Johnson an opportunity for a skip and a jink to the try line either. It's was Sinfield's brainfart prior to that which created the conditions and circumstances for the defeat.

The two that offered a real insight were Trent Robinson and Grant Millington. The detail from both was eye-opening.

It would be great to see the Leeds coach in that situation.

I feel i can talk without my Blue and amber glasses on, and most of what you have written i actually agree with believe it or not. I did say at the start on the whole his international career was a let down.However, He was MOM in a game vs a NZ side who were World Champions at the time in a tri nations a few years back and held his own in several other games if not excelling . How many times too has he been the scape goat when the England side has been battered off the park up front by the Aussie pack and ripped to threads on the fringes, in teams constantly on the back foot? if England would have have had a Lockyer or Thurston in those sides instead of Sinfield would the scoreline have been so much different? i dont think so personally. The sides Schofield and Hanley played in between 88-95 were the best squads GB have had since the early 70s when we could actually beat the Aussies in series and WC's so i don't agree they played in poor teams and they are the only real play makers you would say have made a real mark in the past 40 years , i would maybe at a push stick Andy Gregory in there but that is it.

The Golden Boot, well all i will say is i think he deserved it as much as Farell did in 2004, make of that what you will.

What an odd comment to make re Sutcliffe's play. It was only last week in Perpignan where two short attacking kicks in to the in-goal led to two Leeds tries. The second a virtual carbon copy of the one Lilley put in V Huddersfield.

It was Sutcliffe who said he would have passed!

Yes it showed just how much thought and detail goes into a top coaches game plan. Pity the players cannot always stick to it. Even the Cowboys the other week had a coach cum water boy on the field for a lot of time passing on instructions.