Ok I've given it some thought, and i cant think of a single reason as to why a 40 point defeat would have been better. Please enlighten me...........

You should stick to banging on about how brave terrorists are, RL is clearly not your thing.

Serious question - did you go to the game? And did you go with a number of non RL fans as I did? I'd be interested to hear how a 40 point beating in front of a 70,000 crowd would be better than what was served up.

As one guest said - that has to be the best sport played out at the new Wembley yet.

You've just explained precisely that Sinfield was out ahead of everyone else. Point proven. It may only be 2-4 metres, but it was enough. It doesn't really matter where Watkins & Charnley were, they're not the ones sprinting hell for leather and missing their man. They could still have reacted and drifted.

However, it's likely either Sinfield had made the call to rush, or they had seen him go fast and reacted. Either way, that decision proved to be the wrong one. As I've explained at length, the better option is to go fast about 8-10 metres, hold, and drift. Offer a solid line and invite the attack onto you, not a zig-zag of over-committed defenders with holes to run at, which is the worst thing you can do.


Charnley and Watkins could easily have covered a wide cut-out pass. In the time it would take to loop a pass so far they could have closed down the touchline no problem. Only those with little or no knowledge of RL defences would think a try was inevitable - it certainly wasn't. You're showing yourself up with that statement.


It was mentioned in response to his comparison to Sinfield. However, as I've already stated - and I'll repeat myself as your memory is clearly faltering - yes, George moved too slowly and was out of position. But...and concentrate now...if he had moved up quickly he would have been inside Sinfield, who got stepped on his outside, and therefore nowhere near Johnson, who would have had a clear run in. Johnson actually only has to step George due to his slow advance! And remind me, who was it left him exposed 1-on-1?


A metre drift (as you see it) is still a drift. Regardless, Sam Burgess is simply not an factor in this play. Clutching at straws.


"I'm not trying to blame others [ibut[/i...George...Sam...and let's mention Watkins and Charnley..." anyone else? Could you actually bring yourself to utter the words "it was Sinfield's fault"?

To blame Sinfield shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and the decision-making process in it.

Sinfields decisions wasn’t to rush out and miss a tackle or drift and defend it. In that position NZ were the favourites to score. The most likely outcome of that play was NZ scoring, they had quick play, numbers, and weren’t far out at all.

What Sinfield is looking at is space on both sides of him, the ball going to Johnson, Johnson having men either side of him and a limited amount of options. If Sinfield doesn’t rush out and hangs back and drifts then firstly he needs to know which side to drift to because drifing out to cover the wing/centre partnership would have left a huge gap on the inside, drifting in side would have left a cut out ball to the winger and a stroll in, try. England were in a bad position where whichever option Sinfield chose, the most likely end point was NZ scoring. A ‘shooter’ was the best option, it was the option you want your defence to take, it just should have been coming from inside Sinfield rather than Sinfield. The problem with that is a good run on the back of a good PTB had sucked in 4 men and our defence was stretched.

It was a patient well-executed set, against a tired defence, with on the back of quick ball, it would have taken brilliant defence to stop it.

If there is one place we can apportion ‘blame’ it probably is there. NZ scored of a good set, they got a penalty from Gurgess’s high tackle but props make high tackles, it happens.

The Kiwis with secondds to go ran a quick, quality set of 6, twice. They didn’t panic they ran their sets as they practiced. When a kick to the corner, even going to touch 10-20metres would have likely won England the game, we didn’t organise a set to get our best kicker on the ball, in a bit of space to get a decent, not even necessarily brilliant kick away to close the game down. Instead we were panicked in to a poor kick from Widdop that went pretty much straight up. That’s maybe 30metres we lost in territory by not having that ‘close down’ game plan. That is something to learn from and work on.

I was bemused when the last tackle kick was straight down the middle for NZ to return it with momentum. Kicking it to touch or even dead would have allowed us to regroup in defence.

Disagree, running out at full speed always makes it easier to be stepped and with two props on inside they were never going to cover the gap. Running out half speed and making NZ player make a decision giving team chance to slide would have been a better play. If he passes inside the two burgesses would have been there, passes outside worse case scenario is they score on wing leaving a difficult kick. Easy to say in hindsight but if you are going to rush out like that you have to make decent contact with attacker, Sinfield stuffed it.

You also have to have confidence that if he does step inside you, that someone is going to be coming across to cover. Sinfield did. They weren't.

Behind Sam Burgess, Kevin Sinfield was England's MOM. He was outstanding. What happened at the end of the game happened. But don't call the bloke out for having been responsible for England's loss, however heartbreaking it was.

Spot on. By rushing in and over-committing he's made the decision easy for the attacker. If he had held his position in the line he then forces the attacker to make a decision. And yes it's far easier to be stepped running in at speed than moving in and holding the defensive line. If NZ had gone wide Charnley and Watkins could have reacted and slid, using the touchline.

It was a panicked decision which backfired. He should never have done it. Yes, had it come off and he'd nailed Johnson he'd have been the hero. But it was a poor decision and Johnson is too good to go one-on-one against while advancing at speed. The safest option was always to move in as a line and hold/drift, as they had been doing all game to good effect. England weren't dangerously over-exposed and a try was not a definite - far from it. Simple defence would have been fine. A one-man overlap is easy to defend.

And now someone says it was the best option! Clearly not, as he was left on his backside and Johnson scored. Shooting out the line is very, very rarely the best option. You move in with the line and present a wall of defenders. It's the basic backbone of RL defence.

As I've said a few times however, I don't blame him for the defeat. England should never have been in that position. Sinfield was superb.

Burgess gave away the penalty for the high shot and then missed the tackle that led to our win. He's not experienced enough for this level. Both teams were ordinary at times .. it's just we were less ordinary when it mattered. We didn't fire the way we could. Hopefully we will in the final but gee the Aussies look good.

That doesn’t follow at all and highlights your misunderstanding.

The fact New Zealand scored doesn’t mean the wrong decision was taken, you can make all the right decisions in the world and still be scored against. New Zealand were favourites to score in that position, the fact they did doesn’t mean a wrong decision was made to allow them to.

Sometimes you face a patient well executed set, sometimes the attacking side make defending very very difficult, so difficult that a try isn’t scored from a mistake but from the quality of the attacking play.

England were in a bad position, Englands best option for defending that position was someone wrapping Johnson up. The criticism of Sinfield isn’t that he rushed out as the ‘shooter’ its that he was a half second too slow and didn’t execute the tackle.

Not read every single detail people's thoughts on the last play, but it's pretty simple, Sinfield missed a one on one tackle that he should have made. End of.

He's not the reason we lost, but I think some fans lovin with him clouds their judgment and trying to blame t
It on Burgess is ridiculous. He's a massive prop going the wrong direction to the worlds beat stepper.

BTW before I get shot down, I am NOT blaming Sinfield for the defeat.