"Those 1 percents" only "make the difference" if the sides are EVENLY matched.

Add 1 per cent to Carl Ablett's optimum performance and you've still got rubbish.

Take 1 per cent from James Graham's optimum performance because he had a drink a week before the game and he's still good enough to - as you say "make the difference".

If you think it's ok to deliberately pick a sub standard team against Australia then we will also have to agree to differ. In an ideal world we would have dozens of players that are good enough to beat Australia. But we don't. You are an idealist, I am being realistic and pragmatic. Would I pick Hock if we had someone better? No - but we don't.

I think you are confusing club management with International management. When you are at a club, you can sometimes take a defeat with the eye on longer term planning. So you discipline players knowing that it benefits the club in the longer term. With International management you only get one chance - there is no longer term. Therefore you can't afford to make up rules that may be professional but are unrealistic and detrimental to team spirit.

I agree with the above poster who argued that James Graham is experienced enough to decide for himself how he prepares for a game, and as a former captain should be trusted. I think that Hock polarises opinion and whilst he may have acted unprofessionally the reaction from McNamara was contrary to what was required by England. As the game proved - we could have done with those players.

I'm afraid your arguments are facile. McNamara over reacted. It should have been kept in-house. Players were disciplined. The game was lost. And with it, England's chances of winning the tournament.

You have a right to your'e opinion, but we have seen what team discipline does it makes average squads good and good squads champions. I would never want to revert back to pre Madge days at wigan and i am glad Mcmamara stood his ground and earned the respect of the players 'Ryan Hall'.

The coach sets the rules not former captains, he will be the one getting the blame not the players.

forgot to add, Picking players just because of their abilities but ignore the circumstances is for primary school not professional coaches. The only people in the wrong was the players not the coach, there big boys and can decided for them selves if they didn't agree with the rules they should of refused the invitation to the national squad.

Where in my post was I arguing about Wigan??? I have made a clear distinction between managing club players and managing international squads.

And stop putting "your'e" - it's "[uyour[/u opinion"

it makes no difference if its international or club level, if anything its more important at international level to have strong discipline in the camp. your welcome.

This comment set me thinking about how we approach Internationals generally compared to the Aussies. To me the Aussies will do anything to win. They will try and get the game played with an Aussie ref with rules interpreted their way and the last thing they would do is drop one of their best players even though they have plenty of alternatives.

We on the other had always seem to do the "right thing" when we have not got the luxury they have. For as long as I can remember we have had roughly just about enough players to form a team good enough to give us a chance but sending Hock home isn't the first time we have reduced that small number even further.

I remember years ago Joe Lydon and Des Drummond missed a tour down under because they got into a scrap at Central Park during a game that spilled over the barrier into the crowd. I can't remember if there was any more to it than that but they were kicked out of the tour squad.

I was flabbergasted. They were key players who we could not afford to leave out and I am certain the Aussies would not have done the same thing. We lost as usual. I am sure there have been other occasions were for some reason our best squad has been reduced by our own management but I just can't remember them at the moment.

As to Hock, well in my opinion had any other player done as he did I reckon that player would still be in the squad and if I am right on that score McNamara has punished Hock based on Hock's reputation not just on what he did in the England camp. If so that is wrong but either way I reckon if he was an Aussie not only would he still be in the squad but he'd have probably played in the game as well.

I totally agree with you Dave and that Aussie desire to win is ugly. Ive been to way too many international matches were the aussies refs give us nothing and then compare those to the Morley red card by Ganson. I will never part with another penny of my money to watch another international match Ive had 25 years of hurt.

I agree with pretty much everything you say about the Aussie s and have banged on for 20 year as about giving them nothing when they come here as that's what we get from them.
With regards to Lydon Etc. I'm pretty sure their were other mitigating factors and I believe iirc that there were court cases involved.

However, with regards to hock and if any other player had done the same I disagree.
There are lots of assumptions in your post re hock so I'll go off what I've been told and if that is true the camps well shut.
There were lots of rumours when he left wigan and some posters tried to have the rest of us believe he was mainly the innocent party and the other players would soon walk out and follow him. That was way off the mark and nothings changed imo with this scenario to make me believe that hocks positives would outweigh the total negatives he brings to the team environment.

. Double post

I agree Dave, but it has had me pondering just how much influence that the RFL throws into squad selection.

A few years ago, Phil Clarke left the role of GB Team manager and gave an open and honest account of the reasons why, which if I remember correctly were largely ( not entirely) to do with the RFL trying to manipulate and meddle in every decision from squad selection to which airline they use, hotels, kit etc etc !

Personal views on squad selections mean that everyone will have their own Aussie beating formula, but I bet none of them include sending your best players home before it all kicks off.

I feel for Gaz Hock, as he has worked hard to get his chance and at his age this will probably be his last chance too and whilst none of us like losing, it is a small price to pay to have a little discipline in your life to reach the pinnacle of your sport. I too think that he has been the victim of his reputation, but it has been well earned and probably deserved.

But I still think that unless we have a coach with backbone enough to pick the in-form players, rather than the big names first, 'lets fit em in' attitude, we won't win anyway, so its of little consequence.

I knew if I stuck to my guns on this thread finally someone would speak up with some good sense.

I couldn't agree more with you. The Aussies play to win - we seem to be more interested in playing by the rules. and according to the majority of posts on this thread we seem to be happy that way. The idea that the Aussies would drop James Graham is risible.

Another example. England play Australia in CARDIFF!!! The atmosphere at the game was zero. I was sat behind the posts surrounded by people who had never seen a game in their lives, including two women who spent the whole of the second game discussing which of the Italians they would like to shag!! Why not play the game in Leeds at Elland Rd? The team would have been given some loud support, instead of the game being played in near silence, punctuated by the squeals of schoolchildren. and if there was 45,000 there I'll eat my hat. There were whole areas of the ground with absolutely no tickets sold whatsoever.