Well there was already one mediocre hooker out there, so yes, Moore would have fitted right in.

Of course they didn't break through the middle. That's where our defence was, rather than out wide.
Just trying to establish what you think the "right position" is.

Are you trying to argue that Smith was in the right position in defence throughout the first half?

Would have been fun to hear many of the Leeds fans had Pryce put in a performance akin to Smith or McGuire last week. Have a funny feeling he wouldn't be getting the same level of patriotic backing . . .

You know, I think he is...maybe he thinks Smith is a second row or hooker?

So he should have said "f*ck where the rest of the team inside me are standing, I'm going to stay right out here where Greg Inglis is. If that leaves a gap you could slide a bus through sideways on my inside shoulder, that's not my problem"?

Anyone who fails to grasp where the deficiencies in England's defensive strategy were for the first forty minutes on Saturday has no place trying to discuss the finer points of the game.

No he should actually have been in his OWN position, the rest of the team's defence made the aussies go wide, when the did they found an enourmous gap where Smith should have been

Something he was guilty of it the World Cup too...

and what is that position?

Lee Smith was out of position because if you watch the game he goes flying out the line trying get an interception and misses by about 10 metres every time, leaving Briscoe on his own against the best centre in the world, the NRL's top try scorer on the wing and probably a second rower too.

For the whole of the half?


There wasn't a single player on either team in the right position in defence throughout the first half.

Presumably you think his OWN position was man marking his opposite number? Watch the game back - if he had stood face to face with Inglis there would have been a twenty yard gap on his inside shoulder.

England's defensive strategy was to push the Australians onto one side of the field then condense in, expecting the Aussies to try and batter their way through the middle.

Obviously nobody had pointed out the speed and accuracy with which Lockyer and Thurston can pass a ball from right to left. The ball moves faster than the man, particular if you fix the inside defenders with decoy runners. All the Australians had to do was keep their width on the left hand side and use ball movement to outflank England's defence.

He left a gap the size of a bus for Inglis to run through anyway so what's your point? I'd rather he left a gap for Josh Hannant to be honest. Fact is he was reading plays badly, not being some mid-pitch saviour for the forwards as seems to be your interpretation.

He was out of position. Constantly, for whatever reason. I'm amazed that doesn't seem clear to you.

Constantly? Throughout?
Australia should have scored every single play the ball