So we have mainly established that its Brough, he is like Lee Briers the man that would have beaten the Aussies 10 years ago but Waite/Noble could never see it.

Also I like the fact that we have brought up the number of times a poster has had sex this week as proof of teh validity of his argument.

I should have added at the start that when I made that post about Ratchford I was already on 4 for the week and was thinking of paying for a 5th tonight....

MY manner was very much informed by the reponses i received.

You will also note that every insult i have thrown has been a direct quote back at what others have said in their responses.

So the biggest stage is only the World Cup final?

Broughy bottles it on the biggest stage SL has to offer, he'd be in meltdown in a game like today.

I was more referring to your manner with regards to England's perceived success and that of the tournament.

So you didn't ask me any questions then? In what way did Steve McNamara insult you?


You were making, when Steve McNamara was appointed, the same points you are now? That'll be easy for you to prove then won't it. A quote from back then of you saying that he should be playing Sinfield & Widdop at half back along with the other points you've made will exist then will it?


Grow up.



So you've changed your mind since then?


When was that clear exactly? How did this contribute to the disaster this World Cup has been?


Do you think changing a winger has more or less impact on a team than a halfback.
How did this contribute to the disaster this World Cup has been?


I don't know. Do you?
How did this contribute to the disaster this World Cup has been?


Why do you think the selection was "so wrong"? How did this contribute to the disaster this World Cup has been?


How bad was discipline in the England squad? Do you know? Where you there?
How did this contribute to the disaster this World Cup has been?


You know why people ignore them? Because they're ridiculous when attempting to equate them to the World Cup being a disaster.


Have they? How many people?


No they aren't. Just because you type it in capital letters it doesn't make them facts. Especially as you don't even know the answer to the 2nd and you haven't said why the 1st is a problem.


Thanks for that. I think you're the only person who's ever thought that.
How does that turn the entire World Cup into a disaster?


Again, thanks for that fascinating insight, except you're wrong. Sponsors like to be associated with teams that have lots of people watching them. Hence the sponsorship of football and international rugby union teams.


How does this relate to the World Cup being a disaster?

You've put nothing forward about why the World Cup, only the most obvious of obvious points that it would have been better had England won the World Cup.

Explain how the increased crowds, media attention and better performances have made this World Cup a disaster?
Can you explain that? Just give it a go?




You see you don't get it. You made the assertion. It's up to you to back it up. No-one else. You.
Most other people can see the World Cup so far as a fantastic advert for rugby league that's finally got some national media exposure, along with improved performances from England.

Why can't you see that? Why is it such a disgrace to lose to New Zealand? Why has it turned the entire World Cup into a disaster?

Actually try and answer the questions to back up your point.

Or you could always lock the thread like you did when you embarrassed yourself on the Bradford sponsorship thread.

McNamara did not consider Brough, Hock and Hardaker were sent home. Chase and McIlorum have gone home too.
Whether any of those players would have won us the game we will never know.

One thing that's firmly my opinion is that those England forwards today were the best I've ever seen, and I remember the 1962 GB team tha won the World Cup. They were very good, that outfit today were so good it was hard to believe it was an England pack.
We need to build on that, in the main it's a young squad with probably only Sinfield, Westwood and O'Loughlin too old for the next WC.
We now need a new breed of half back, Widdop will stay and two more are needed for further England Intls.

McNamara is the problem, His squad selection this last three years has been awful, England's performances have been very poor at time in the Exiles games.
Today was brilliant but once again we just fell short.
I don't know who, if anyone, we could say for certain had they been in the squad would have won us that game over those that were out there.

Thats not really fair, I remember seeing a young Danny Brough only a year out of playing in NL2, in the Challenge Cup final and playing very well. I don't think Brough suffers from confidence issues or is likely to be daunted on the big occasion.

I think Brough is like where Briers was a few years back - a very talented player, that was inconsistent in the past but is shaking that out of his game.

Danny Brough is 30, he's played in one CC final and guess who won the MOM on that day

Danny Brough has never played on the big stage where he has been the main playmaker and is unlikely to. What makes people think he would suddenly be able to step up when he never has when it's really counted.

YOU WROTE

.

Therefore it would seem reasonable to think that you thought a WC semi final is the biggest stage. I correctly pointed out that a WC final is a bigger stage than a WC semi final.
Ergo Brough and Sinfiels will have exactly the same amount of success on the biggest stage ie ZERO.

You are now talking about the SL do you think that is the biggest stage, bigger than the WC.

Brough has never performed on any stage, small or big.

I give up, you're just an idiot.

The fact that no one agrees with you should be a sign.

If you can disprove my propositions or statements it is up to you to do it.

If The WC had a main sponsor and you tell me who it is then i am wrong.

If The BBC had the best games as opposed to those on Premier sports then i am wrong.

I am happy for the court of RL opinion to decide if England vs Ireland, France or Fiji were better than

Scotland vs Tonga or Italy or USA vs Cook islands or Tonga vs Cook islands Nz Vs Samoa etc .

I think you are mixing up your threads it was the One wher i was arguing with the Leeds fans rather than Bradford fans which i locked which i said at the time was a mistake as i was bored with it and it was going nowhere ( it was then reopened).

If you want to sprove my views on McBanana have been inconsistent then YOU look for the evidence.

You are a right lazy get. I produce facts and give my view now you do some work and disprove it if you can. ( hint you can go through all my posts and you want be able too ).

You deal in a lot of ifs and buts which is pointless.

The fact is Brough is 30, he's played in 1 CC final where Sinfield won MOM and has never played in a 'big' game since, what makes you think he would suddenly be able to turn it on in a big game when he never has before?

You show me one occasion when Sinfield has played in teams as poor as Hull, Wakefield and Huddersfield and made them into all conquering teams.

Your accusation of ifs and buts goes both ways.

But again your point is irrelevant as i keep saying. Not choosing Brough was just one of many errors made by McNamara but you keep ignoring all the others. Why do Leeds fans just want to turn this into Brough vs Sinfield.

What about Chase vs Widdop.

T Burgess vs anyone of 10 other props who could / have should have been picked.
etc etc etc