He said you were talking bollox, and then explained why. What part of that don't you understand?

The part I dont understand is the part where you say Tomkins sparked the team into life. I dont understand it because its bo!!ocks.
It was the forwards, who just before half time actually, decided to start playing which they hadnt done since the first Australia try.

I missed him out because I dont think he sparked us into life either. That doesnt mean I think he had a poor game. Quite the opposite. I also thought Tomkins was good in the 2nd half but that wasnt what I was talking about. The forwards, most notably, Burgess, Ellis and Crabtree really upped it and thats what gave us the space for Tomkins and Sinfield etc to do what they did.

Neither was I



Our first success in the game was just before half time when the forwards upped their game. That was what sparked us into life. Not the new Messiah.

I don't think you'll find one person on here that defended McGuire's performance.. we just don't agree with the slagging off by idiotic jealous inbread supporters of other clubs.

Do you? I don't, the rest of your post I couldn't agree more with.

As an ex-Garforth Comp student, I'd suggest in their case it was always down to pure wannabe elitism and snobbery on the part of the school - if they play Union they played the likes of the Leeds Grammar whereas they'd have had to play "lesser" schools of the type Garforth (despite being a Comprehensive) didn't want to be associated with!

there was a fair amount of it being thrown about, but I think it was just in an attempt to wind up the scousers, rather than being a genuine viewpoint

Danny McGuire has a fairly rare off day against the Aussies (by the way he wasn't the only one having an off day - you may or may not have noticed) and was one of the players that didn't improve much in the second half. This becomes the basis of a 19 page thread generally focused on the 'awfulness of Danny Mc Guire' which then turns into a traditional club v club fight.

Which is why I look at this site every day (don't often get that much time to post or develop an argument - sadly a bit too busy at the day job)

Sheer genuis.

If by some miracle we beat the 3rd Favourites this week (which will require the team at least getting back to the levels they play at for their clubs something that hasn't happened much if at all for nearly all the players since and including the World Cup). We should then be at least competitive against the Aussies - we will however still get our s tanned.

Yes we must play McGuire and we must play Tompkins and Eastmond, Myler - not yet ready.

Ive actually Just sat down and watched the whole game again for the first time since seeing it live, Mcguire had a poor game but doesnt deserve the vitriol that he has had, also Tomkins didn't start to play until around 65 minutes into the game so I cant see why he's being labelled as some kind of wonder kid.

I actually think we will do OK against the Kiwis but wholesale changes will not benefit us, this is the team I would play having watched the game again.

1. Smith
2. Briscoe
3. Eastmond
4. Shenton
5. Hall
6. Mcguire
7. Tomkins
8. Morley
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. Burgess
12. Ellis
13. Roby

14. Wilkin
15. Graham
16. Crabtree
17. Westwood


I dont usually advocate playing players out of position but I think Sinfield was excellent controlling the game from DH and ROby is a very strong runner and defender so they swap positions.

Im not a huge fan of Wilkin but he has a bit of utility value and the best we have in the squad for the 17th man IMO.

Burgess has to be on from the start and play as much of the 80 as possible, and someone please show him how to keep hold of the ball!

Crabtree is a great bench prop and he will be a bit of an unknown to NZ.

Grham will provide good impact from the bench aslong as he stops passing like a halfback when he gets the ball, he did this a number of times against Australia and it wasnt good IMO.

Didn't you know, that was Sinfield and McGuire's fault.

I quite like your lineup, I'd be tempted to use morley as the impact, rather than Graham, who I think is more of a solid durable prop.

I'd still have sinfield at 13, but give him license to get into dummy half as much as Roby

England need to get the ball into the hands of their most dangerous individuals as often as possible, which to me means that if you are going to play Eastmond, it's in the halves.

As the least successful of the half-backs on Saturday, that's at the expense of McGuire IMO.

Assuming Inu replaces Matai, the Kiwis won't lose anything in attack but they will be slightly weaker in defence I reckon, so I'd be looking to get the likes of Ellis and Burgess running at them on the edges, targetting Hohaiha and Fien.

So I'd go something like:

Briscoe S, Briscoe T, Smith, Shenton, Hall, Tompkins, Eastmond, Morley, Sinfield, Graham, Ellis, Westwood, Burgess

Roby, Crabtree, Carvell, Wilkin

I have been in a meeting this morning, and I was asked why a spreadsheet I created was 'playing up' ?

I answered 'Probably McGuire's fault' which, judging on the blank expressions went 'Woooooossssshh'.