And regarding England at the end of the season. I know it's only one game but Widdop looked very poor and for me not good enough to get the England 6 shirt

Thing is, for the last decade we've been very spoiled in the hooking roll, Diskin then Buderus.

Lunt did a reasonable job last year so expectations for the 9 shirt are pretty high and on last night's performance McShane isn't reaching the level we've come to expect.

Sinfield didn't look good enough either.

Didn't have a great game agreed my main point being doesn't look good for the end of the year

He would've looked pretty good if he was in Widdop's position of playing at 6 for Melbourne, whereas Widdop (who did play there) didn't.

Sinfield would look ridiculous in a Melbourne shirt. I cannot imagine Craig Bellamy coaching a team built around Sinfield when they have genuine world class players like Smith and Cronk who are able to control the team and dictate play to a much higher standard.

I too can't imagine that Bellamy would build a team around Sinfield, but he would've still played much much better than Widdop did. Probably wouldn't have fluffed the conversion to the Harris try like Smith did that put his team under extra unnecessary pressure by not gving them a full score advantage and could've cost his team had Leeds got over near the end

William Eve,if Leeds ever played to perefection you would still be a Troll

He wouldn't get a spot in the Melbourne team because he isn't good enough. No world class coach would select a player so overbearing and demanding of control when there are far better players like Smith and Cronk available to do just that.


It wasn't the first time that Sinfield displayed his inability to control and dictate games against Australian teams which lie outside his SL comfort zone and... unfortunately... it won't be the last.

One thing which struck me was how quiet the crowd were. Being a Nordstander this is not something I particularly care about but I thought the folks over on the other side prided themselves on getting behind the team? Trailing by only 4 points down for a chunk of the second half and yet it was virtually silent?

I'd really like to know how you can qualify this statement?

Disagree. Burrow has in the past defended down the middle and did it well and it was not suicide....remember he is a good tackler. However when he does this the opposition run at him to tire him out and to lessen his match winning abilities. I maintain the coaches have worked out a way to play Burrow at the breakdown for distribution and attack and out wide on defense thereby keeping a key man on the field for the full 80 so they do it for positive reasons and not negative ones.



I agree with you in principal and I am sure that could happen if McShane were to be relied upon to give that regular impact off the bench. As it is, the risk of not having Burrow on the field is too high because he is one of our main strike players. So when McShane comes on (and Lunt came on) it is usually for a back rower.



Agree with you re: Clarkson. I would have not brought on McShane in the first half but used him for the last 20 mins instead which releases Burrow to an even more roving role. I would have used Clarkson in the first half to spell one of the first choice back rows. Also in a situation where you are chasing the game in the last quarter I would prefer to see faster back rowers coming on and props going off with the notable exception of JP.



Again I agree with you in principal. However you do want your best players on the park for the maximum time possible particularly the ones with the best rugby skills. We have several of the first choices who have great stamina and only need a short break if indeed any, so equal use of the subs is not a given in my view and I do not subcribe to the belief that you always have to use them all... as the state of the game and the form and fitness of those of the field at a point in time can overide the original game plan.