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.

There is no misunderstanding, not on my part at least. I've explained at length why it was the wrong decision and what the safest option was. Yes, the fact he missed his man is proof he shouldn't have taken that option. He went away from a basic of RL defence when in fact holding a solid line would have worked best, a wall of defenders that could use the touchline if NZ went wide, or hold firm with George and Sam on the inside if they went direct or inside.

Shooting out with the intention of 'wrapping Johnson up' was never the best option. Absolutely not. And yes, like it or not the fact it failed is indeed proof you shouldn't rush out of the line unless you are 100%, guaranteed, nailed-on to make your tackle. Because that's exactly what happens when you do. Find me a coach who says otherwise.

You can try and make it sound like it was a desperate last-ditch option with a NZ try a given, but it wasn't. A 4 on 3 is easily defendable, certainly so close to the touchline, and there were men on the inside - and even if George wasn't in perfect position it was recoverable if NZ had gone inside with Sam easily close enough to react.

Simple fast in, hold and slide defence was by far the best option.

If you don’t understand the logical fallacy within your argument I cant help you.

The fact that we have now got to a situation where a try scored near the posts could have been pushed to the sideline, and a player who stepped inside Sinfield would have been tackled by players inside Sinfield had he not run out of the line (if they could have covered the inside ball, why couldnt they cover the step? the obvious answer is because they werent there to cover either) shows your inconcistancies.

The last kick was by Sinfield as the clock ticked over 78mins, which went straight down the middle of the park into the hands of RTS about 20/30m out.

At that point, even a kick dead in goal would have been preferable.

Sorry i meant the set before that.

The same applies from that kick though which Sinfield took wide and kicked back in to the centre, it wasnt a great closing set.

Both our last play options at the end seemed rushed rather than planned.

The sliding defence on Charnley's wing worked perfectly well in the first half.

If Sinfield doesn't rush out of the line, the chances are the Johnson moves the ball out wide and it becomes the winger/centres responsibility to defend the line, which they had done pretty well throughout the game.

Had they still scored, it also would have made the conversion a tougher one.

Hardly point proven, all 3 go up and it isn't Sinfield out on his own at all. As expected you claim that Sinfield must've told them to go too without having any knowledge just guessing even though Watkins has been shooting out like that all his career so far, as soon as Luke was tackled I was 100% certain that if the ball went to NZ's left that Watkins would be well out, he always is and I've seen it enough at Leeds with Sinfield staying a bit further back (like you recommend) and the gap between the two costing us.

With statements like
"It doesn't matter where Watkins and Charnley were" and
"Watkins and Charnley could've easily covered" a 3 on 2 overlap shows you up even more. They were "not sprinting hell for leather"? Funny how they too got from the tryline to over 11/13m out in one single pass and after one single step past Sinfield from Johnson, Watkins is a few yards past him looking backwards.

Could they have cut out a looped pass to the wing, unlikely as even Charnley was at least 10m plus away from the side line, Watkins even more and running forwards and a slight angle away from the touch line. The only thing to save that not happening would be for Johnson to make a mess of his pass.

With that chase out it went from a 4 on 3 Kiwi advantage to two 1 on 1's firstly with Sinfield and then secondly with George, unfortunately both got beaten, at least Sinfield tried his hardest to get there.

And you're struggling to comprehend what I've said. I said George needed to make more of an effort to get ACROSS, not up as their was no one on Johnson's right shoulder to mark. So your reply that it would leave George even less able to reach Johnson is incorrect.

Seen as though you've skipped this particular part from way back, I've previously mentioned Sinfield did make a mistake, that's clear.......but it was missing a tackle, not the decision to come out and that it was compounded by another error inside him.

Yes I've mentioned George, Sam, Watkins, Charnley AND Sinfield, that's because their the 5 closest defenders involved with the play we're debating. Hardly going to mention Hall, Cudjoe and Widdop movement in that play am I as their's really isn't relevant unlike others even though you believe "it doesn't matter where others were".

Having watched it again for the first time today,this is exactly how i see it

The defensive line is only as strong as your weakest man, at that point in time, it was George Burgess. The moment Sinfield & Watkins decided to get off the line quicker than Gurgess it made Johnson's mind up for him. The pass out wide became a risky play and the step inside Sinfield became obvious. If the outside three had got off the line at the same pace as Gurgess I think the best the kiwis could have hoped for was a try in the corner (something they hadn't looked like doing all game down that wing) and a difficult kick for the win. But that's sport, people make split second decisions in the heat of the moment sometimes they come off sometimes they don't. If Gurgess gets off the line with them, then they cut out both options, but he couldn't he was spent. Such a fine line between winning and losing!

I think if mcnamara would of used abblett it could of been a different result because a fresh pair of legs at the end in defence would of really helped IMO.

Precisely. The worst option was taken. Had it worked it would have been genius, but rushing out the line seldom does and is rarely the best option.