I wasn't suggesting that it would.

I was making the point that it is how management react to indiscretions that sets us apart. Aussie keep it in house. You won't know if Slater broke their rules (though I'm guessing that having a fight at 2.30 am probabaly isn't condoned!!!) - but he won't be sent home, because Aussie come to win. England set their own rules, judging players more harshly than other teams do - and where will it get them?

If England win the World Cup, I'll glady eat humble pie - and lots of it. As I've invested lots of money in buying tickets to every England game in the tournament and I've been underwhelmed by the performances so far, they really need to improve to win the semi. It annoyed me at Cardiff becasue I reckon with Hock and Graham in the team they could have beaten a rather flat Aussie team and given themselves practically a bye to the final. A chance missed I fear.

Yes that's how I would have dealt with it too. It seems rather sensible don't you think?

You were casting aspersions onto his character with no evidence, and continue to do so further down the page. He was attacked on a night out, which the club had granted him permission to be on. As for the management of the players, I'm 23 and love going for a drink on Friday/Saturday nights. If I got picked to play for England ahead of 100s of other professionals in a tournament that only comes round every five years, I'm pretty sure I'd manage to stay sober for a month. Did you know that Michael Maguire imposed the same rule at Wigan throughout the 2010 play off series? Was it poor management then, or only when Steve McNamara does it?

I wasn't casting "aspersions". I don't think he did anything wrong particularly. Neither do the Aussies. He will play in the World Cup final. Now if only the England managment had such an enlightened view...

What is good management and what is poor management depends on whether it is works or not really.

Ever watch the Apprentice? Sugar never cares about the process only the outcome. It's the same in sport, when results are all that really matter at the end of the day. (By the way - do I agree with that? - not really, I think it's a bit sad, and probably not very healthy. But it is what it is). McNamara will be judged on results.

I don't actually think you know what your argument is.

Type "CCTV footage shows Slater attack" into Youtube, then you can make a decision on whether Slater was in the wrong or not after actually seeing the incident.

So the only reason Australia are going to win this world cup is because their managements rules are far more Lax than ours AND when the players break them they come up with a cover up story to make it look like they didn't?
Whilst we treat our players far too harsh and if we didn't we'd stand a better chance of winning the World Cup!

And to say you weren't suggesting we should let our standards slip is nonsense, you werent suggesting it, you said it.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my argument. England have far fewer good players to choose from. So it is vital that they have the best ones on the park to give them a good chance of winning. If England had a wealth of world class players we could afford to take a principled stance on player behaviour. But we don't. I paid my money to watch England have a chance of beating Aussie. They needed the best payers out there to do so.

I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of player behaviour, but about the bottom line - results.

He was attacked

If you don't think he did anything wrong, you aren't half putting a lot of effort into taking others to task who also don't think he did anything wrong

Well if you read as well as you spell, I'm not surprised you don't.

Edited my post above to clarify. As to your next bit, if you do that you send out very bad messages to the fringe players who follow the rules but can't get picked ahead of those who don't. Not to mention the first teamers who are then given carte blanche to ignore any rules they wish in future, safe in the knowledge they are indeed bigger than the team and undroppable

Deliberatley misrepresenting your argument?
You said you don't care about rules
You said if England had a wealth of World class players we could take a principled stance, so by inference because we don't we can become "Unprincipled"?

End of the day your argument stands up like this, You want who you think are the best players playing irrespective of what they do off the field.

Most other people don't share this view and none of your very thin anaolgies about what the other countries do stands up very welll so lets just leave it at that then eh?

When you are paid to run the national team you can do what you want but I'd suggest your chances of Winning anything would not be anymore increased with Gaz Hock & Hardaker or Graham & McCollorum in the team having been under your "Management" for the previous 6 weeks under the Non-Rules regime you'd run.

Ahhh, the old "I'm losing an argument so pick on an iPhone auto-correct" method. Very good.

Yes you are right in the points you make. And I agree if you were talking about say, Wigan. But this is international management and as such is different. You HAVE to pick the best players. You don't have the luxury of bringing through youngsters or losing the odd game to work towards the bigger picture (ie squad discipline)

As I say though, it depends how much you want to win? If you think picking fringe players like Carl Ablett against the Aussies is ok, then fine too.

No-one said management was easy that's why they get paid so much. McNamara's job is to manage England's world cup attempt. So far, he has alienated half the players, the press and and managed to lose a winnable game against Australia.