Agree with Gotcha. I was very impressed with our first half. I think we missed some leadership in the 2nd half. Thought Sutcliffe looked a bit lost/unsure in the 2nd half and that was the point I reckon where either Sinfield or McGuire would've stepped up and eased the pressure on him. Sadly I think McGuire getting injured was the worst possible thing to happen for us. The likes of Sutcliffe and Lilley just need that bit of direction/leadership at times and when it's missing they aren't developed enough yet to fill that leadership gap/to know what to do next.
When you think of who we've got missing from last season it's no wonder we're lacking leadership/direction. Sinfield, Peacock, JJB & McGuire is a lot to make up.

I think our kicking was generally poor, again I think McGuire would've helped in this regard, as would having Falloon fit as Burrow could've kicked and taken control more.

I don't mind Keinhorst, he's a decent squad player. Delaney did look a bit slow and ponderous though. When we get Ferres, Ablett and Ward all playing I think Delaney may just be used to give them a bit of a break.

Been quietly impressed with Galloway, he's not going to do anything amazing but I think he'll be a solid consistent prop who'll be very difficult to knock back.

I think Hardaker's great but there is still a problem with him linking into the attack, it just isn't smooth at all and too often stalls the attack.

Unfortunately the problem of having 3 halves defending reared its ugly head again.


I really really hope people don't overreact to the scoreline. I thought we did bloody well considering who we've got missing. Put Briscoe, McGuire, Falloon, JJB, Ward & Ablett back into that side and I think it's a very close game, certainly we'd be in with a good shout of winning.

I think it's very much like O'Loughlin said, they do everything slightly better and more consistently. Their work rate and focus in both defence and attack is superb. They're nearly always in the right place and backing up/chasing when they need to.

Very pleased to see we're still determined to move the ball around. Very good to watch in the first half.

On the downside, I'm just generally disappointed with British RL. I don't mean the players, and there's a few notable exceptions but I'm disappointed/depressed by the structure and infrastructure of our game and how it's run and I'm disappointed by a far too prevalent attitude amongst RL people.

Re the structure, I don't mean the league setup. I don't think it's ideal (I'd prefer a better method of licensing) but that's a different issue and I don't think it's quite as vital as some people think. My current beef is with other aspects of the structure of the sport. For starters I think the RFL isn't as professionally run as it should be. There's no medium or long term strategy for the game. There's no obvious method of expanding the game and little to no support for anyone trying to at any level. Therefore there's no consistency in anything the RFL does and so there's little success.
The Embed the Pathway programme is a notable exception to this but I'm willing to bet it'll be all but forgotten about in 5 years time and the amateur game will remain the basket case that it is.
Then add in the general unprofessional nature of how most RL clubs are run and it's little wonder we don't flourish as a sport. Again, there are exceptions to this, hopefully an increasing amount but it's increasing far too slowly.
The lack of engagement most clubs have with their local community is shocking. I understand it's very difficult to get noticed outside your community but there is sadly just a general lack of effort at engaging people into rugby league in various forms. It's still very much an air of "well we put a game on every other week so the fans should come running".

Another issue is the attitude of people in RL. This is obviously a generalisation but sadly it doesn't appear to be an insignificant minority. There is a very backward, insular and selfish attitude. This is most often obvious in the amateur game. Be it open age with violence, intimidation or drinking. Or youth & junior with, at one just poor coaching (as Seth alluded to in his post on another thread) and at the other end again violence and intimidation and swearing. Just as an example, a lad I used to coach plays for East Leeds now. Last week they had their game abandoned because the opposition coach was abusive and intimidating toward the 13 year old lad who was refereeing the game.
We also see this kind of attitude manifest itself slightly differently when England play and people only turn out if they can get tickets for 10 quid.
And we also see this bizarre attitude in some fans at England games and at games like tonight. There were lots of British RL fans tonight applauding and cheering for NQC throughout the game. I utterly do not understand that mentality. If they do something amazing, by all means applaud the skill it took. Again, at the end, by all means applaud them. But during a game where British RL is trying desperately to overcome the NRL we had so-called "fans" applauding and cheering for the NRL team. I've also seen at this at England and GB games where fans from one club will applaud the Kiwis because one of their clubs players was playing for them.
Another example of this attitude is the sh|t or brilliant brigade. It's not helpful in a game like RL where small moments massively affect a game.
I just don't get this attitude(s) from people who profess to be a fan of the game. I find it utterly bizarre, totally unhelpful for the sport and to be honest quite childish. But maybe that's just me.
These are things I've thought about for a while but seeing a large amount of people exhibiting the same behaviours again tonight just prompted me to have a rant.

Didn't say we'd benefit more from 0 mins but one single game won't do what people are claiming either.

You can't play 80 mins vs NRL then go spend 30 weeks playing SL and then after a pre-season break expect to beat an NRL team who since you last played them spent 30 weeks playing other NRL teams and possible SOO.

One 80 mins a year is nothing if the rest of the year it drops down again. The reason people say NRL teams are so good is because they face that intensity WEEKLY. The likes of Leeds, Wigan and Saints have been involved in so many WCC matches over the last decade yet people say their players still aren't good enough to beat the Aussies that the line "they'll learn from this" is just a pointless cliche, you don't and won't catch up to them by playing them one game a year.

The structure isnt that important if.......

this wasnt a problem. But it is. What the game seems to be doing at the moment is abandoning licensing with the vague promise that clubs will just do what needs to be done, then not doing it, then pretending the issues the game faces arent important and hiding away from anything that highlights them.

Thats how we have gotten to the point of people wanting the WCC scrapped because it punctures the delusion that mediocre is brilliant in a sea of poor.

you said it should be scrapped.

If you improve SL to the level of the NRL you certainly can do.


one 80 mins is one 80mins. Its not as good as two or three or thirty 80mins but its infinitely better than 0mins.

Hey if you are proposing leeds, wigan, saints etc join the NRL and play 80mins at that level every week im on board, but if the options are 80mins or nothing, im going with the 80mins. It is quite literally, infinite times better than nothing.

Thought Delaney started ok but as so often happens he seems to pick up blows and you start to see him holding a body part or struggling to make it back in line.

Hardaker it is becoming frustrating his attack, it'll become a time when you can't say he'll develop given time.

Thought Galloway went well. Keinhorst struggled but I've never thought of him as good enough to take on Aussie champs, as a good squad member in a SC SL he's fine.



Said it before, too much respect is given and you're asking for trouble if you give off that vibe. Not saying abuse the NQC but you'd think royalty had arrived this week. Make it hostile, make them uncomfortable, make them feel like no one likes them.....people would do that if Wigan or Saints came into town for a playoff so why not tonight for a WCC? Utterly bizarre and just watching the game back now and the fawning over JT and the NRL is already nauseating.....for once Phil Clarke was right, stop showing them too much respect otherwise you won't beat them.

The biggest lesson surely has to be that structure is king. When you watch the NRL sides they have a purpose to their sets of 6. Defensive sets are generally conservative aimed at making yards from their line followed by a kick aiming to pressure the opposition into a mistake. Attacking sets have meaningful plays every tackle, with the halfbacks/hooker organising each play and trying to end the set with a good attacking kick if they can't score.

It sounds simple and ends up looking simple but SL sides just don't do it as well, particularly in attacking positions.

It's partly personnel but the annoying thing is its not hard to imagine that most SL sides could do it a lot better if they worked on it.

The Leeds side out today was a long way off full strength, but I don't think a full strength team would have won. A much closer game yes, but not a win.

It should be scrapped, that's not saying we'll benefit more, I'm saying it's pointless either way.



And this series does nothing to do that, unless watching NQC tonight suddenly makes Wakey and HKR play as good and intense as them......considering this contest has been going on around 2 decades I won't hold my breathe though.



It's not infinitely better, it's just nothing at all in the grand scheme of things. Like I said before, if it was we'd have seen the benefit a long time ago considering WCC's have been going on for quite some time now yet people say we're fare behind as ever. Aussie coaches and players have been coming over here all the time yet their experiences growing up through their system isnt rubbing off in terms us being as good as NRL teams.

I think the biggest difference is what happens OFF the ball. English side has it then dummy half, 1st and 2nd receiver and one runner you have to watch out for whilst another 7 or 8 guys stand with hands on hips or taking a breather waiting for their turn. Aussie side has and you have to watch out for the above as well as 3 or 4 extra runners.

Key problem with English play, thinking you're only involved in attack if you touch the ball, you can create a try simply by running a line and not touching the ball.

even for you proposing something for no benefit is an odd thing to do.

No but testing themselves against the best in the world improves the leeds youngsters. Which is a contribution towarads that end.


How do you know we arent seeing the benefit? How do you know we wouldnt be in an even worse position if we had hidden ourselves away and played fewer games against the best?

Anybody agree with what Sam Tomkins said give us back our best 10 English players playing in Australia as well as your best 10 Aussie players and we beat them.

Printer - that comes partly from structure as well. Nobody is going to make dummy runs if they have no idea what the next play is.

You are right about the level of involvement as well though. How often do we see Aussie sides score very quickly off our mistakes for example? In SL too many teams would take two tackles to work out what to do when they get the ball. In the NRL the halfbacks are straight in trying to take advantage of a non-aligned defence. As a result the defenders also work really hard to get back into position.

To me it all goes to show that they key players are the halfbacks, and SL just doesn't produce them. I look at that Leeds side today and the biggest gulf was clearly halfback. You swap the halfback pairings around and it's not hard to imagine a Leeds win.

We would certainly be a lot closer.

in fact put a full strength leeds side plus Sam Burgess against that NQC side without Thurston and we would certainly be in with a good shot.

Yep. I was looking forward to seeing these players like Thurston play too, but I left my applause until after the game. During it I was fully behind Leeds. Just like I was fully behind Saints and fully behind Wigan. And I can't stand Wigan under Shaun Wane.
I just don't understand the attitude of actively cheering on the opposition. Applaud genuine moments of outstanding skill by all means, I can remember I applauded some fantastic play from Lockyer v GB when we got hammered by the Aussies about 10 years ago. But that's because it was truly exceptional. I certainly wasn't cheering on Ali for instance when he was playing against us for the Kiwis just because he played for Leeds.

I find it a bizarre attitude and it feeds into this invincibility/God myth that we portray the Aussies as. I think it's also indicative of the backward, negative attitudes we have in other parts of the game too.

The aussies being invincible ubermensch and the NRL being lightyears ahead means they are uncatchable and unbeatable so we shouldnt bother trying, it absolves the game in this country.

The aussies being beatable and having strengths and weaknesses means we are accountable for our failure to beat them.

Theres no blame, no questions to be asked or changes to be made it isnt our fault we can't beat superheroes. If they are fallible, if they can be beaten well......

But this flies in the face of what actually happened though - his kicks weren't particularly good