Quote: Ken Acker "Exactly. this is a lose-lose scenario. As it is he was a marginal selection. What is the benfit to English RL in playing him? If if someone else picked in this position played as poorly as he did (it would be difficult to play worse) then at least it would be a tough experience they could hopefully learn from. Or we move onto the next person on the list until the right one is found. With Smith - he's gone no matter what. And if Smith did play adequately he is still gone and a replacement will need finding. The only beneficiaries from a decent Smith performance would be the England RU who wouldn't miss the opportunity to cash in on the publicity. A truly inexplicable selection.'"
I love this line of argument.
If Tony Smith had picked an experimental side full of young kids who weren't the first choice selection and it had got stuffed by 60, he would have been crucified for selling out those who had paid good money to see a competitive game.
He picks what was arguably his best available side, it gets as close to Australia as any GB/England side in the last five years (with one exception) and all of a sudden he should have been building for the future rather than picking a side to win in the here and now.
If people want teams picked for development purposes, why is nobody questioning the selections of Morley and Peacock?