You quoted my question to read like an insult. That was not the case, it was a genuine question. Although you may not have taken it as negative.

I think you are more or less spot on David, we can all argue our own points. Sinny had a better game than he's been marked but lacked the support runners to give credit to his positional play so didn't stand out as is usual, the same for the halfbacks they are up agains't it without forward momentum. Thought Kirke made some big tackles but boy does he need to step up his running into the collision, jjb needs a rest when we get a full squad, if ever we do

If and when I contribute to this or any other thread I will not insist that my opinion is more "accurate" than other peoples "looney" & "crazy" opinions. You find it very hard to give an opinion without demanding you are right.

You do it every day on most threads then accuse people of having an agenda when they pull you on it.

Stay away if you can't get beyond been childish. You have now posted 3 times on here without contributing anything but an agenda.

If you don't want to give anything constructive, PM with your childish posts. At least that way the thread is not ruined for others. I am perfectly prepared to listen to you without others having to be bored by it.

For me the mark for Sinfield was a reaction to what I thought was a pretty poor leadership display - as the captain part of his role is managing the team on the field; that had to be taken into consideration when deciding the mark. His defence was his only redeeming action on Saturday and two of the tries went through him too?

What did my first post have to do with this fabricated agenda?

Now here is a proper argument with somebody contributing.

So are you saying David that you felt Sinfield was partly to blame for two of Saints tries, and have therefore marked down his defensive effort because of it?

I can't recall the two you are saying, so could do with reminding. But if he was to blame then I can see an argument as to why you might not have given him full credit on defence. Which were the two?

I'd agree with that, maybe Sinfield has made a rod for his own back (in a good way) by being so pivotal to everything we do, IMO tackling is the bread and butter of being a pro rugby player, making then should be the norm, missing them is not.

You know what, that's a fair point.

You could also argue though that somebody making 40 tackles as opposed to 20 would by definition probably more tired than the other. And therefore you leave yourself open for misses. Not that I am saying that was the case.

But you also need to take into account that if you take that player out making the 40 tackles, would the person put in their instead have been as effective?

Personally speaking I'd disagree with the mark and comments regarding Peacock.

He is way and above our best metre maker in the forwards and that was from the bench.

I agree he doesn't generate fast play the balls,but he never has so that is not a decline in his game and regarding his metres made he is usually our highest in the forwards and quite often he is the only forward contributing significantly in that stat.