I have held a question mark over Sinfield's inclusion at international level. Not because I don't rate him, but because I don't think we [ishould[/i need a distibuting 13. However, Smith's system of playing one half back either side of the pitch with Sinfield in the middle means he's thriving, as he did in Smith's Leeds side that played the same system. I also respect he has a big heart and will work and tackle away.

I think now, in tomkins and Eastmond, we have a half back partnership that would be capable of bossing the game and distributing well, so would ideally like to see a return to a bigger, harder 13 being played.

Wilkin played well when he was finally introduced on Sat. I (like others) feel he's a little lightweight for international rugby, but he carted the ball up manfully, tackled away as he does and added an extra dimension with some ball handling out wide.

What people don't see in Wilkin is how well he works for the team in running off the ball to give passers options create gaps for the other receivers - Something our rugby lacks in comparason with the Assuies

If you play a running 13 (Burgess, Ellis?) then you place a heck of a lot of responsibility on Tompkins and Eastmond very early in their careers. Having someone like Sinfield in the side (whether it's at 9 or 13) takes some of that pressure off them and means they can just play what's in front of them.

And perhaps with two such young players at international rugby its necessary this year, but ATEOTD half backs need to be able to do that job. Sinfield doesn't just take [ipressure[/i off them, he stands at 1st reciever and takes [iresponsibility [/ioff them. If we want to consistantly compete at international level, then our half backs need to do their jobs in full.
This time next year, I would expect those two half backs to be able to boss the game between them, and as for pressure, well i don't think either of them suffer unduly with nerves...

Again, this isn't me complaining about Sinfield, i know he's playing well.

[iWith all this in mind before the comp I would've played O'Loughlin at 13.[/i

It's certainly something I've missed & picking someone for their imaginary running is a first. He is just not international standard IMO. I have said for a few years that Sinfield is a great captain, the best English captain by some distance, but not big enough for 13, too slow for 6. I thought if you could get him in the middle coordinating a team going forward he could maybe translate his club form. He is doing that & more the last 2 games.

I was trying to point out his range of skills. I'm not particulary an advocate of him at international level because he is lightweight, but he is still a player of merit and not the "flat track bully" that people reckon.

What I did expect to see from him on Saturday was him being rotated with Roby and taking up Sinfields usual role when he was playing hooker (that was when roby had originally been named as a starter). This didn't happen and he just came on as a 2nd row. There are probably better (heavier) players for that job.

James Graham won Man Of Steel the other year, and was named in a World 13, from the World Cup, if I remember right he was the only English player in it. He's 1 of a very few that can play the full 80(Although this didn't do Fieldon any good in the long run). He's considered World class.

Adrian Morley, although well into his 30's is hugely respected down under aswell as here. And is probably the best he's ever been, due to the fact he's stopped trying to take everybodys heads off.

Jamie Peacock is World class too. Along with Ellis & Burgess.

James Graham is definitely world class and both Peacock and Morley have been although their stars are now waning. We have a set of forwards to beat the Aussies, probably a better set of forwards than the Aussies. It's our backline where the issues lie and we are lightyears away from the Aussies in that respect. But some of that is our own fault as we have chosen to import wingers and centres and such like rather than grow our own, which is why the inclusion and development of Tomkins and Eastmond (et al) is vital for the future health of the English game.

This year is too early for Tomkins and Eastmond to take on the responsibility of a halfback partnership. That Sinfield did so well in distribution is great and the arrangement should be maintained for Saturday as it can only get better. Having Tomkins and Eastmond free to play their own game, with kicks and line breaking along with their excellent defence will be even more important against the Aussie backline and their style of play than it was against the Kiwis.

Somehow, anybody would think you don't like Saints palyers - e.g. Roby and Graham as you seem to take any opportunity to snipe at them. Can't you put your obvious prejudices away for once?
We are talking England here, not club rivalries.

We shouldn't even need to think about a 'ball handling' loose forward. Aus and NZ never use them. They don't exist in the NRL. What does is SMART hookers and a good halfback pairing. That should provide all the decision-making and ball handling a side needs. And I for one genuinely believe that the British obsession with ball handling loose forwards is one reason why we struggle to produce class halfbacks.

Leeds is probably the classic case study. What we have is three very good players in McGuire, Burrow and Sinfield. And from a club viewpoint I wouldn't want any of them to leave. However, I would also suggest that part of McGuire's problem at international level (at least under other coaches) has been the fact that he plays only on one side of the field for Leeds most of the time, Burrow on the other. In many respects they are both 'partnered' at halfback by Sinfield and not each other. They are also not responsible for most of the decision-making or kicking. Again areas which stand out as poor when they play for England without Sinfield.

Interestingly one of the NRL trends that's worrying some people is a perceived gradual replacement of genuine stand offs like Lockyer with runners.

To be controversial I thought the HB partnership for England was very poor from a creative & structure viewpoint. There was no end of effort & glimpses of individual class but I was disappointed in how the HBs directed the team around the pitch - especially from Eastmond who astounded me with his maturity for Saints at HB this year - granted Sinfield was doing this but you need a number of players to be able to take control. I think Burrow could have done what they did & more, though they have the potential to be better so no complaints if we stick with them.

Tetchy aren't we? My comments were in answer to some ill-judged posting which Sinfield proved wrong. Your churlish comments reek of club bias as you fail to understand the contribution made by Sinfield's Man of The Match performance. His shortlisting for the coverted Golden Boot award and his selection at loose forward in the International Federation "Team of the Year" (one of only 2 SL players + Ellis) show that others on the International scene do not share your one eyed view.

Calling as you see it = your obvious predjudices, based on the evidence of your recent posts. Its not your opinons of who is world class or not that show this, its the snide way you have to pick on those that don't make it in your eyes. By a huge coincidence they just happen to play for Saints.
Still if its makes you happy.

With regards my Saints tinted glasses. I don't think you have any evidence of that.
For example I thought Sinfield was exceptional and filled his potential and in the end deserved his place ahead of Roby on form.
I agreed that Wellens and Pryce were right to be dropped.
I am far from sure that our new "heroes" Arnold and Tomkins will cut the mustard in a big game etc.
I thought Westwood was excellent as was Crabtree, Ellis, Burgess Graham and Hall and that Morley and Peacock are both looking a little quiet etc etc

Don't think you will find much Saints bias in those opinions matey. My only bias here is in in favour of England!
(you might find a tiny little bit of my Saints bias if you go on the club forum but I try to stay objective on the international matches).

I can see your point but I would disagree with it. There can't be more than one leader in a team. Both Tomkins and Eastmond had their roles - clearly that included kicking duties and defensive oversight (think of Eastmond screaming for cover to move over when he could see the danger created by Fox leaving the wing exposed). Neither Tomkins nor Eastmond - especially Eastmond - is experienced enough yet in their roles at club level to take on too much responsibility at international level. IMO, obviously.

So it was spite then? How childish.


Spot one post anywhere on these boards where I have done anything other than praise Sinfield for his game on Saturday and then repeat what you say above. You will feel just a tad silly methinks.

I don't think he deserves the Golden Boot. That's OTT. But he undoubtedly had a great game on Saturday and I hope he repeats his performance - betters it, even - this Saturday.

However, I also said in my post that all the team deserved praise for their efforts last weekend and I include Wilkin in that. Wilkin is underrated by some Saints fans never mind fans from other clubs. But he works damned hard, like I said, and he also has good hands, can kick well (two 40/20s in the match that saw Leeds out of the CC last season as an example) and can make great breaks. He has also been a bit of an interception specialist.