Is it supposed to be news that the teams have changed from one year to the next? Particularly after losing.
Quote the England team last years World Cup and compare it to the team from last week. Does that mean the Kiwi WC win doesn't count?

The teams are forced to change, however you are missing the point, the clear difference is that for the WC Final NZ had their full strength side out.

Against GB the team was almost a second string side and in some cases third choice.

Is that difficult to understand?

Do you think a New Zealand first string (the WC side) would have lost to GB 3-0?

That's always the case RR. It's very rare to get a 1st choice team at this late stage of the season. What's the threshold of player stability for a result to count?

Are you discounting last years WC because the teams have changed since?

Does anyone else find the idea of Thierry Hallibut reffing a match between England and Australia terrifying?

Nothing wrong with Saint Steve - especially if he`s consistant with the biff rulings (I have the image of him telling JP to deal with himself

).

As for the question in the thread, who is for the question in the thread, who is/has been qualified, in the opinion of fans, to manage our international team? I can@t thinkof anyone who has had that particular confidence.

string New Zealand side.

Why would I discount last years WC?

We are talking about you giving top billing to a series which to one country (by their own admittance) meant very little, in fact enough to leave key personnal at home and dip into SL to throw a side together, a team that half the side would not get close to a second string New Zealand side.

You can not score GB's greatness based on that series and only a fool would do so.

You would discount it for the same reason you are discounting the 2007 series win. The team changed the year after.
Where and when did NZ say that losing an international series meant very little to them?

Nope, he's no worse than Ganson and at least he won't be open to accusations of bias whatever the result.

The Aussies have had a hit out with Ganson in charge already, they know what to expect and can adapt to the way he referees the game. They won't concede as many penalties on Saturday as they did against the Kiwis.

I'd rather have neutral referees for all games than start with neutral refs then change the policy because one side doesn't like/rate the options available.

The only surprise is that the Aussies didn't insist on Shayne Hayne.

You are describing a Rolls Royce to a Mini Metro, the difference being that the side in 2007 was not in anyway competitive as GB rattled up 44 points in one game!!

Come on, its not that difficult to follow that comparing a near full strength side to that of a severely weakened one is not a reasonable argument.

Both the WC winning side and this side are very very strong packed with ability and some serious grunt, clearly you think the 07 side had similar attributes.

England will be fine with Ganson in charge. I don't think Australia is near St Helens.

If your criteria for discounting the opposition is that GB scored a lot of points against them, you're never going to count a good win.

WTF, my criteria is one that allows me to form an opinion on a side that includes a number of third choice players and one that gets bitch slapped by a GB side who pretty much did as they pleased.

Do you really think a recent competitive NZ side would get a 44 point touch up by GB? Come on Richie, you are attempting (not for the first time) to defend the indefensible.