I believe I have addressed them in the first part my previous post.

Dave

I agree re Peacock, he gives alot of "up and at 'em" attitude, but he doesnt really get very far with it, plus he has to be one of the most negative people in the game, hardly an inspiration to have as a captain.

He will still be in though, because he is one of the darlings of the RL media / RFL.

A bit like the emperor's new clothes, this.

For years, people have been quoting Peacock as if he's the benchmark for prop forwards. So much so that I've begun to wonder if I'm actually missing something.

I agree that he can be a rough customer, but I've certainly got some sympathy with the above viewpoint.

Let's leave aside the point that there is no evidence that Lockers is playing better than last season (when he was playing very well indeed in a side that was performing to a lower standard than it is at present).

You are saying that you are complimenting Lockers - what you are doing is complimenting him but at the same time you are also making an adverse comment. You are claiming he is playing better, which is a compliment but then saying its because he is no longer captain, the implication being he can't cope well with the role. If you were simply saying that Lockers was playing better this season than last and its down to MM and SW working with him to improve on his already high standards that would be entirely complimentary. To say that he's playing better and its partly down to him no longer being captain is partly complimentary and partly an adverse comment on Lockers. There is also the implication that when he is captain this season he won't play as well as he would otherwise, which is not complimentary either! I'm sorry you can't see this.

For England I'm thinking something like:

1. S.Briscoe
2. Hall
3. Gleeson
4. Bridge
5. Pryce
6. S.Tomkins
7. Eastmond
8. Graham
9. Sinfield
10. Peacock
11. O'Loughlin
12. Ellis
13. S.Burgess

14. Morley
15. Myler
16. Crabtree
17. J.Tomkins

4 Wigan players in there though so probably a bit biased, I'm sure a neutral would probably swap J.Tomkins for Westwood or Harrison and Gleeson for Shenton/Atkins. I wanted to include Lunt but couldn't really find a player to take out for him.

You think Burgess is more creative than Lockers?

I thought it was a very straight down the middle sort of side for Grimmy that one(he's normally very creative with his team selections) but i've got to agree with that question.

There is simply no reason why you'd play Burgess at 13 and Lockers at 12 and not the other way round.

No Dave, I don't believe you have other than to say "that's what I think". Where is the evidence that taking the captaincy off him (which, in itself, I would contest anyway) makes him play better? It's not enough to say "taking the captaincy off people often results in them playing better" because the reverse is also true. I was looking for direct evidence from you regarding O'Loughlin to counter the fact that he has played well whether captain or not and, even if you think he is playing better this year (again disputable), has played equally well [uthis season[/u whether captain or not too.

Now, I'm not arguing that he does or doesn't find the captaincy a burden, or even that he feels less or more pressure when captain. What I a saying is the evidence so far suggests it has no bearing on his own game whatsoever. I still await your [uevidence[/u to the contrary.

I must admit I originally had it the other way round, then I had a rethink, here's what I was thinking:

- I'm not a fan of the creative loose at interational level, I think it definitely works in SL but when we do it at the next level we seem to get battered about a bit, mind you I might just not be a fan of Sinfield at loose.
- Burgess had a cracker at loose v Aus at Wigan, even though the team didn't.
- I'd generally want Burgess to get more ball, and freedom with it, because I think he's the more dangerous ball in hand attacker of the two, particularly as he'll have a year in the NRL under his belt.
- Ellis and O'Loughlin as a back row pairing will be bloody tough to get past.

How many more times does the point have to be made that asking for evidence the captaincy being taken off him may be responsible for any improvement is a false argument? Life isn't black and white and neither is sport. It COULD be a factor because its ONE of the things that has changed and so for anyone to say this is can not be a factor because I can't provide any evidence is just not a sensible stance to take.



Of course the reverse is also true and so what is your point? That you accept captaincy can affect a players form? If so then there you go, that is the basis or my argument.

Do you have any evidence giving a player the captaincy can result in them playing better BTW? Or is it just a commonly held opinion?





What evience is this?

I await your evidence to back up [iyour[/i stance. You are simply not in any position to rule out removing the captaincy hasn't resulted in an improvement unless you contend he hasn't improved but I can provide evidence he has (his stats).

Then again we could just do as is done on forums and speculate why, as we do with all players, about why their form is the way it is without all this nonsensical calling for evidence. It's a sports forum not a forensic science class.

Dave

You keep saying the same thing, Dave, but it's simply not a viable argument. Anything COULD be a reason for any percieved change in form! The fact remains that there is no evidencial link between the two. He has played equally well whether captain or not. Why are you finding this point hard to understand? He's changed his strip, his hairstyle, he's older and any number of other things but to say these things have changed therefore they COULD be a reason, whilst true, is a non-argument. Show me a link (how he has played better this term when relieved of the captaincy for example) between the two if you want to make this argument.





Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you one of the people to that say that Coley seemed to thrive on the captaincy? Did Farrell, Hanley or Clarke raise their games as captain? There is no evidence that this applies to O'Loughlin but, equally, there is no evidence that it has an adverse affect on his game either. He falls into the camp of 'makes no difference'. If you want to argue that as opposed to it making him worse, then I have no truck with that. That's what the evidence suggests.



The evidence of there being little or no difference in his performances whether he is captain or not. Or are you saying that during his games as captain this season he has been noticibly worse than the games where he wasn't captain?



Dave, I have provided evidence that it has no effect. His stats this season are similar whether captain or not!!! please supply the stats that show this not to be the case. I await with bated breath! If, on the other hand, you are comparing his stats with last season's then you aren't comparing 'like for like'. The only direct comparison we have are his perfomances this season when captain as compared to when not. I know you understand this. Indeed, I believe you would have to for your job.





"Nonsensical calling for evidence"....excuse me while I post a smilie!



Finally I get it! You only want to provide evidence when it suits your argument! I'll remember that when you next try to prove your point of view on here! So, just to get this straight, you want your viewpoint to remain unchallenged when you can't provide any evidence to back it up?

No not [ianything[/i. [iAnything that has changed[/i. Apart from stupid things like hair style of course ( I can't believe you actually wrote that

).

Did you do any science at school? It's pretty basic stuff, cause and effect. If you get a different result but two things have changed all you can ever say for certain is either one or both things have led to the different result.

We have a new coach and Lockers isn't sole captain, so his better form could be solely because of the new coach, solely because of the captaincy or a combination of both. In pure logical terms it could of course be down to neither but that would not be reasonable stance to take given we both know the affect the coach has had on the team and both accept being captain or not can affect form.



What evidence? Since he has not been sole captain his game has improved. I can't prove that is a reason for the improved form but it is far form unreasonable to suggest it is a possible reason. That you simply can not deny. You can't prove it isn't unless either you insist on saying his game has not improved at all this season and if you think that then I think you are blind.



He is no longer sole captain this season and his game has improved. There is no evidence to the contrary.



No I am saying now he is part of a leadership team and not the sole captain his form has improved. How many more times must that be said?



Lockers has been part of a leadership team this season from day one. Last season he was sole captain. Therefore the comparison can only be based on this season compared to last or earlier seasons when he was sole captain.

Also you have not proved one iota of evidence. Your "evidence" is based on your opinion. You seem to be talking yourself into a corner were you are arguing that his game has not improved from last season at all [uwhich you have to do or you then have to offer explanations of this improved form[/u one of which could be, he is not the sole captain anymore!



No you don't get it. There is no "evidence" to back up your position or mine as regards a players form. There never is any evidence on such subjective matters as to why a player suffers a loss or gain in form, only speculation. You can smile all you like but that is the truth of the matter.

Dave