One of the (few) negetive points for me about the international performances of the last two weeks was Smith's tactic of playing Sam and Kyle left and right, and often using Sinfield as 1st reciever in the middle. I especially felt that the ball wasn't in the hands of Kyle enough, considering how dangerous he often looked when he did get decent ball. I know Leeds always used this tactic when Smith was there, but I can't think wether its continued under McClennan, do any clubs SL or NRL employ this tactic?

I seem to recall us using this tactic under Millward, although the right hand position was taken up by Sculthorpe. Am I right?

Everytime Eastmond got the ball around the middle he caused huge problems for the Aussie defence but it was too far and few between. It seems common sense that a lad as small and nimble as Eastmond should be running at the biggest and slowest players on the pitch.

At Wigan we've had split halfbacks under Noble. I suppose at club level it can help players on certain sides of the field get to know each others games but that also works the other way and the opposition can work you out aswell. Wigan have played at their best in the past couple of years when either Barrett, Leuluai or Tomkins have gone away from that and started popping up all over the pitch.

I think they should have just been given the "Free role" Sinfield suposedly had.

Why have two young lads follow a script when they will be able to play more "off the cuff" and exploit the gaps easier, rather than Sinfield trying to do this when it was obvious he just wasn't quick enough.*

*(Not having a go at Sinfield, just telling it how it is)

Pesonally I thought the move of Sinfield to loose was the start of our downfall. We lost the beef of Burgess in the pack and as such it was less effective and he just prevented the ball getting to either half back as quickly as it was when we were causing them problems.

I'm sorry but Sinfield had one game where he played well at Hooker, then we accomodate the team around him. It was never going to work. Placing him back in that role 20 minutes into the second half is what cost us the game. all the plays went down the left and were ineffective, the ball never got to Eastmond who had caused the aussies so many problems. The Aussies know just to pack the defence on their right side. You can say a lot about Robes form but for me we looked the better side with him on the pitch.

It all went to pieces when Roby and Sinfield were on the pitch at the same time. Sinfield was doing an ok job at 9, but it disrupted the half backs when he moved into (presumably) 13 after Burgess went off.

FWIW, Roby needs to improve his passing. He is not bad, but not in the same league as KC who provides easily the best service in the league. That is what half backs need at international level.

Exactly.

As out tactics were simple 'pop and drop off' balls, then the moment a big unit went off meant we would struggle more. Compare this to the Aussies who got their runners running at gaps and you can see the difference.

That is where we lost it overall. The forwards were biffing and bashing all night and it takes it's toll.

Fair play, Eastmond and Tompkins had a restrictive remit, but the Aussies play that bit quicker and on better lines than us. It means that you need that bit of size on the bench. Obviously TS did'nt trust Carvell etc because he used Wilkin (albeit sparingly0 there and tried to blag Sinfield at 13 for a spell.

I had a chat with a mate of mine earlier about Eastmond and Tomkins playing too wide and not being given enough responsibility around the middle when it came to play making and the general kicking game. He reckoned Smith was right because neither are ready to do that job. I can see where he's coming from but unless you give these lads those responsibilities how are they going to learn?

This was meant to be a tournament where we built for the future and to a point that has happened but I can't help feel we missed a trick.

You know things are un-organised when Jamie Peacock and Sam Burgess are having to kick on the last tackle

They need to learn at Superleague level first IMO. Once they have got to grips with their roles at that level, I'd say [ithen[/i was the time to let them loose at international level. If their development follows the line everyone hopes it will, that should be by the time the world cup comes around.

I'm a bit bored of the whole [iprotecting Eastmond[/i thing that went though our domestic season as well as the international games. There's just no avoiding responsibilty when you play 7.

The experienced players should be [isupporting[/i him by taking pressure off him, but not [iprotecting[/i by taking responsibilty off him. For instance, if in the international games, when Sinfield was playing 13, Eastmond had taken up the first reciever spot in the centre and Sinfield has taken up the position on the right, we would of had our most dangerous and creative player getting the ball in his hands a lot more and Sinfield would've still been there to give options on one side at 2nd reciever and take the kicking responsibilities.

Roby will need to improve beyond belief to fill KC's boots and it shows how short we are in this position if we then play loose forward Sinfield at hooker. Roby is a great defender and that is about as much as I can compliment his game with.

1. There isn't a hooker in the league who can fill Cunningham's boots.
2. It'll be Scott Moore, not Roby, who'll take on the role of playmaker next season.

Roby's service was much quicker, crisper and more accurate than Sinfield's from dummy half in both the NZ match and the final (before this becomes another dreary Saints/Leeds thing, I am an admirer of Sinfield's game, and thought he was good in the series). This idea that he can't pass seems to be based on anything other than actually watching him play. Admittedly his running game has been less effective since the slowing of the play-the-ball, but it's by no means shabby.

Perhaps the fact he's a "scoot" based hooker means people convince themselves he can't be capable of a good passing game - a bit like the whole "Newlove's poor in defence" thing.