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.

I'm not talking about leaders, that is Sinfield in all but name. I'm talking about 3 players - eg Smith, Thurston (though I prefer Greggs) & Lockyer) -who have the ability to threaten the line every time they have the ball. ATM our HBs don't do that.

Whatever the inexperience of Tomkins and Eastmund, they have proven that they have no fear in shouting at senior players and giving orders, more importantly, they've proven they have no fear of the Aussies. It is strange how we talk about inexperience, yet the Aussies aren't afraid to drop stars for the younger players if they are in form. Finally we are doing the same.

I would like to see them link up more at first and second receiver rather than playing on each side of the pitch, which is a problem with having Sinfield as another pivot. However, the tactics have worked so I can't complain too much.

On the subject of Wilkin, he is there most probably as a versatile replacement. He is yet to prove himself at international level, but he's useful t have as an option on the bench covering 2nd row or 13 or even centre (which is a position i'd like to see him play more generally).

Why is putting another point of view childish? or spiteful? as it was in answer to another post which had been running Sinfield down.



I think your following comments come under the "anything but praise" heading.



All this is qualified faint praise for our MOM who was our creative organiser, top tackler, goal kicker and leader on the field. His passes were putting our forwards and backs into space. Also no need for the cheap shot comments and accusations of club rivalry, spite & being childish as stooping to personal comments just dissipates your arguments.

Now to be positive and also to be fair I know you have also said some very positive things about Sinfield's performance and I agree with you that Wilkin, like Sinfield, is very underated.

Bollox. You quoted my direct response to criticism of Wilkin. I was saying in that post that Sinfield did make mistakes - one big one, actually (passing to the opposition isn't generally a skill we encourage!) - but I wasn't criticising him for that. I was praising all the team's effort, including Sinfield and Wilkin. I wasn't getting into petty, ridiculous club squabbles as you seem to be doing.

I'm not going to glorify Sinfield because RL is a team sport and it took the whole 17 to pull off that win against NZ. But while I have recognised that Sinfield is human (and he is, honest!), I have not criticised him anywhere. I have consistently said all over these boards that he played well. As did 16 other men. That's why we won.

SaintsFan wrote: 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 (unquote)

You asked me to spot one post and I did. Now you are wriggling when proven wrong

Your praise of Sinfield is qualified praise which appears to stick in your throat. Sure they all played well but Sinfield was oustanding so just to say " he played well as did 16 other men" is just churlish.

You jumped in to condem with personal comments, my answer to another post which had implied Sinfield could pass as well as Wilkin. To imply Wilkins efforts (15-20 minutes) against NZ compared with Sinfield's (80 minutes) is fatuous.

Don't be soft. And I'm not going to pander to your Leeds insecurities by giving Sinfield more praise than anyone else. They all deserved praise and they all get it from me, including Sinfield.


Not if they played equally well. The time on the pitch is immaterial. It's how well they play when they are on it which counts, otherwise we could never praise our props.

They did not play equally well that is the point. The fact that you think so shows a pathetic Saint Helen's bias. Next you'll be saying Graham played better than Crabtree and Ellis

What a waste of a subs place. He was only used for about 10-15 mins...I don't get it? This isn't a dig at Wilkin, but at Smith.

The only time I saw Wilkin was when he was coming off.

Behave yourself and stop acting like a child.

Why are you still into "my dad's bigger than your dad" type arguements? Most people leave that behind in primary school.

No. Astute posting.

Well you would say that wouldn't you!