lockers playing 6 for england against australia & bradford sign a crap australian no name halfback



whoever is coaching our kids.....NEEDS TO STOP NOW COS THEY ARE CRAP!!!!

Macnamara needs to stop coaching England...I thought the days of picking a 13 at 6 were long gone for us.

Ah well.

How many times have you seen him play?

How many oppurtunities has there been? There's no escaping the fact he's another NRL reject who wasn't deemed good enough by his team but is coming in to be Bradford's first choice. A bit like Patrick Caravan.

Its definitely negative, but O'Loughlin is there to hammer Lockyer. If he stops Darren from playing we have a chance if he doesn't then we have sacrificed a ball player and then look light on which players are going to unlock the Aussie defence. Its a risk, but lets see how it goes before asking for Macca's head.

But stand-offs don't man-mark each other. He won't be tackling Lockyer any more than anyone else.

If only that clown Mcbanana had picked one of the infinite number of British Stand Off's who are of international class.


Oh wait, there hasn't been one for about 20 years

Terrible, terrible decision to pick O'Loughlin at stand off for a test match, it was bad enough when we had to do it with Farrell (actually it was terrible then as we could have picked Martyn) and Scully, and they were both better LFs than O'Loughlin. It's like watching a car crash unfold, terrible, but ghoulishly fascinating.

indeed, Brown might not have been up to the job, but he was more up to it than Lockers...now we have a poor standoff AND a poor loose forward.

I know that, but I reckon he has included an extra back rower so that we can target Lockyer.

Possibly, but I'd have thought one extra big heavy bloke to run at is probably exactly what Darren Lockyer wants.

While I don't particularly agree with the decision to pick a forward at stand off, I don't understand your logic with the comparison to Farrell and Sculthorpe - if they were better loose forwards than O'loughlin, why does that automatically make them better stand off's as well?

none of us have seen him play


he's a NO NAME AUSSIE...bradford ( any club) should'nt be wasting overseas quota spots and salary cap on NO NAME AUSSIES/kiwis.....!!!!



had you signed terry campese......i'd be over joyed

It doesn't automatically make them better SOs than O'Louglin, but IMHO they were both more creative LF's than O'Loughlin and were better equipped with the skills to make a go of that position than he is. In the case of Sculthorpe he was pretty much as good a SO as any specialist British SO in the period he played, hence why Saints used him there when needed, but he also just happened to be the closest thing we had to a genuine world class LF at his peak. I think O'Loughlin is a work horse, with a decent all round game except for his tendency to put in high shots, but he's not in the same class as either Farrell or Sculthorpe, and I'd rather we'd played someone with a genuine capacity to play SO than limit ourselves in this way. Widdop's main position is SO, Brown has played SO alongside Robinson regularly, and S Tomkins is a better SO than either of them, so it just feels wrong.

Fair comment. I actually think that O’loughlin is a more creative player than Farrell was, I think his distribution was a little laboured and a kicking game than wasn’t international class – in fact, Farrell was a much better running second row (later prop) than a loose forward

Agree with you about Sculthorpe though – he was all class and played superbly at stand off against the Aussies considering he was a career loose forward

On Sunday, I am sure we will see England playing a tight game through the middle with Robinson trying to boss the forwards and Roby & Lunt taking advantage of any go forward the forwards create. The backline certainly has some youth and pace about them but their main job will be defensive I think. It might work, it might not, we will wait and see