i would..australia by 30+ against NZ and england will beat NZ too.......

the last time NZ brought such a inexperienced & depleted squad up here they got tanked 3-0 and france nearly beat them too...

I can't agree with that at all. That may have been true in the 80s but since then? Not IMO.

Have you had many Aussie or Kiwi forwards were/are as mobile as the likes of Denis Betts, Andy Farrell, Ellery Hanley, Paul Sculthorpe, Gareth Ellis and Jamie Peacock. Name me an Aussie or Kiwi foward in the last 30 years who could match Hanley in terms of athleticism.

If you want an example of big lumbering packs, look at the NZ packs in the mid 80s - early 90s. Hardly mobile. Could Kev Tamati, Peter Brown and the likes have played in the backs? No chance. Most of the Kangaroo forward pack from the mid-80s could have played in the backs? Really? Would you have played Marty Bella on the wing or Paul Sironen in the centres.

England's problem positions have been in the halves and centres. Since the 80's, in particular, Australia have had better players in those positions.

I accept the Aussies have been consistently better than us but some Aussie fans seem to think that makes them more knowledgeable about the game.

Players as athletic as Hanley....wow...thats tough.

Tallis, Fittler, Ricketson, Webcke, Civoniceva, Harrigan, Sironen, Lazarus, Watmough, Lewis......I want to stop now because I'll be listing about 50 players just from the last decade.


You stupid poms hold the likes of Farrell, Sculthorpe and Betts as the standards. You idiots. These players got completely dominated every single time they played against the worlds best!

I take it you never watched Hanley.

For a start, Hanley was quicker than any of those in your list. Civoniceva and Sironen would take five minutes to tie their shoelaces. Webcke more athletic than Hanley? Deary me. Hanley was very powerful, quick as a back, a great step, would regularly break tackles and could easily make 40+ tackles in the game too.

I don't think you even understand what the term 'athletic' means. Those Westie schools, eh?

LF you are fast becoming an unfunny joke. Some of the biased tripe you have posted in the last week or two has blown away any shred of credibility you ever had. Some of the nonsense you posted on the Gareth Ellis thread was cringeworthy.




Are we talking about athleticism or general RL ability now?

You want more athletic...not faster.

If you wanted faster you should have said faster.....


What ever the case...no you are right. All English forwards have been incredible athletes, super humans, and completely dominated by out slow, plodding, takes 5 minutes to tie their shoes laces super stars and winners.

Not sure why people are picking Eastmond or Myler over Tomkins. Myler hasn't played consistently & consistently well for months, and Eastmond hasn't played huge amound either. Tomkins is the reason that Wigan actually ended up with an ok season, not looked out of his depth at one point.

CANNOT believe that LMS aint been selceted!!!!! Northern Bias once again eh?

Whilst i think tompkins is far from the finished article, i would say that he has had the better season. I would say that eastmond has more potential though.

Nothing to do with the fact he isn't half as good as the players picked

Agreed, very good player but there are better players in the forwards than him.

Watmough is more of an athlete than Hanley was. I'd say he's probably faster too.

And just while we are talking about Hanely, he wasnt as good as you lot rate him.