rlFACT!rl

Because most other people don't share my view doesn't mean I'm wrong. You are all glossing over the one salient fact here - England lost the game against Australia when they could have won.

I would respectfully suggest that I would treat the players like adults and not like children - giving them curfews and suchlike a week before the next game.

I would also suggest that Hock is a better player than Ablett and as such we would have a better chance of beating Australia with him in the team - likewise with James Graham.

Ever heard of the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face", because that's what McNanara did.

Some people thought we'd have been better off with Hock then Faz at Wigan last year and plenty would say he's a better player then any of last years back row (Faz, Hansen, Tuson or Hughes) and they may be correct but those lads have umpteen medals between them and Hock has none.

You want to have your best players playing but you can't just give them free reign to behave as they would like. It effects the harmony within the camp and undermines the coaching staff.

Agree. Given the loss to Italy (which has been way over-hyped imo), there would need to have been some head-banging & reorganisation before the biggest match of many of the players' careers thus far. For Hock & co to do what they did not only gave the finger to McN but also said to the rest of squad "we don't give sh*t about all this or you, we're above any of these rules & regs and we'll do what we want".
Contrast that to the Aussies going out the other night to wind down, I hope our lot were allowed to do the same & then regroup yesterday.
So far it seems to be working, but I'd certainly put Josh back at 2. Not a fan of McN, but I think we're ok in spite not because of him. But he & the squad need our support, not constant sniping. Save the brown stuff, sticks & fans 'til after the 30th.

Correct. I agree with your first point.

I think the harmony in the camp is affected more by winning and losing than anything else.

But for a one-off tournament right now surely you would pick Hock over Faz? Much as I love Faz I don't think he would scare the Aussies or NZ like Hock.

Gareth Hock had his chance. He blew it. Fact. End of discussion. Etc Etc Etc.


With regards to treating the players like adults, EVERY sports team in the World has a code of conduct. Wigan for example have a drink ban during certain stages of the season. You break the rules and you get punished. You continually break them and you're gone. See Hock and Hardaker for examples.

I would much rather have Hock in the side than not, but nobody is bigger than the team as shown with the dropping of Graham.

Yes Hock had his chance - you are right - and he blew it - also correct.

But just WHO did leaving Hock/Graham/MMc out of the team benefit? Well it certainly benefitted the opposition, and blew our best chance of winning the world cup.

Why punish the players and punish by extension the teams chances?

Shaun Wane was proved spectacularly right in his judgement of not just Hock but all his other decisions. How do we know he was right? Well - the double proves it. How do we know McNamara was wrong? Same logic - the game was lost. I'm afraid sport at the top level (not I hasten to add Junior level) is about results - plain and simple.

I can't believe that people like you still support McNamara. He got it wrong. The game was lost. AS YOU WOULD SAY "END OF".

Im not glossing over any saliant "Facts".
Do you know "FOR A FACT" that England would have won with Hock etc. in the team?
Do you know "For A FACT" that the other members of the squad wouldn't have responded as well that week and maybe just maybe if Hock, Graham, MM, Hardaker had have been selected then maybe just maybe the rest of the squad who did act professionally may have just thought sod this, these lot did what they wanted and still got picked why don't we just do what we want as no-one will kick us out the squad no matter what!
Do you know "For a Fact" that if those players had been selected we would have performed better?

Treat them like Adults! I dont think asking them to stay off the Beer is treating them like children.
Giving them Curfews! How do you know they had curfews? Going out drinking, Not turning up for a rehab & then Medical session plus other things (God I wish I could post what I'd been told Hock did!).
Don't start making up things like curfews to make it look like the England camp were running some Harsh type of enviroment.

Do I think we would have won with Hock,Graham,MM in the 1st game? No,Maybe but not for sure
Do I think we would have performed better with Hock,Graham,MM in the 1st game? Maybe,Maybe Not

Do I think we stand a better chance over the 6 weeks of the tournament having Team Rules in place that all the players by in to rather than have No Rules or exceptions for so called Star players who want to break those rules for whatever reason and the coach/management have to constantly cover it up. Then Most definately!



I think the Harmony in the camp is better served when ALL OF THE PLAYERS can see their mates pulling in the same direction.
If Gaz Hock Trained and conducted himself and could be trusted to play as disciplined a game as FAZ then yes I would have him in there ahead of him especially for a bench spot.
At the moment Faz's professionalism on/off the field narrows that gap and IMO contributes far more to Team spirit, team ethics and overall performance of this team than Hocks indiscipline and then occasional flash of brilliance followed by Brain fart.

Put simply, If Hock, Hardaker, MM etc. were allowed to get away with things constantly then I believe very soon the rest of the players would say Balls to this and then the whole camp would fall to Bits leading to less productive Team performances on the whole and only enhanced by the occosional piece of brilliance by one of the "Special Allowance players".

other than it's not "END OF" in your argument is it?
There's still 3 weeks of the tournament left, what happens if we do win it? Will MCnamara have been right then?
The end result does not always justify the decision.
Wane was right with Hock because he was right, not because he won the double!
When it comes to discipline etc. within a camp you can only take a long term view and if results improve because of it then all well and good, if they don't then so be it because you can't make a disciplinary decision based on what results "You want" to get.

McNamara was right because the rules were in place and the players broke them.
To go back on these rules would have far more detriment long term on the squad than the short term positives from it.
E.G England win in Cardiff against OZ and then the next 5 weeks on the lash and don't make the Semis/final etc as the players don't give a stuff or don't give a stuff as they can see indisciplined players not pulling their weight affecting other more disciplined players.

I don't support McNamara. I support England.

The best thing for England IMO is that nobody is bigger than the team.

No - the best thing for England is to win the World Cup.

Teams are made up of a collection of individuals some of whom are MORE important to the team, whilst at the same time not being bigger than the team as a whole. You wouldn't seriously argue that Thornley is as important to Wigan as Lockers would you?

Actually sport is full of players who are vital to the team - players who the team is built around.

England have the following World Class players -

Lockers/Sam/Hall/Graham/Burgess x 2/Hock/Roby. That's 8. Australia probably have 26 (at least)

for us to have any chance of beating Australia they ALL need to be on the park.

Ian Thornley & SOL are equally as important to WIGAN RLFC and should be treated equally.
Whetehr you "Build" a team or structures or their performances on the park are the same is irrelevant.

When it comes to discipline & standards & when it comes to them as individual Human beings they are equally important & Anything else or any other way of dealing with such issues is a long term disaster.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

They are not equally important. They are not treated equally - one out of many examples. Pay. Do you think Matt Bowen is coming over for the same as Thornley. If you do you must be barking.

Think back to when you have you played yourself. Certain individuals are always, shall we say "more equal than others". That's the way of the world. To think otherwise is extremely naive. Some are leaders - others followers. Every successful team has leaders.

Actually we may have hit on McNamara's mistake. Treating James Graham a former captain and one of the best props in the world the same as an uncapped unproven player may have fostered discontent in Graham. We don't know that, it's only a guess of course.

If Lockers did something similar to Hock that broke Wigan's code of conduct I would expect Wane to drop him regardless of the opposition we were due to face, whether that was Stains, Wire or Sydney City Roosters. No individual player regardless of talent/importance is bigger than the team. To let a transgression slip is to let the rot set in one step earlier, which sooner or later will see us going to Wakefield, losing the game and wondering whether we'll we could actually be relegated again.

Correct. Hence why Gleeson was fired off when we had no replacement centre.

In the suggestions that aboveusonlypie makes, 17 players are allowed to do whatever the hell they want and the other members of the squad are forced to like it or lump it.

For England to win the WC everybody has to pull in the right direction and those that aren't need to be removed from the squad.