Joined: Mar 22 2009 Posts: 1734 Location: Catal Huyuk/Castle Bolton/Dreamland
FearTheVee wrote:Sculthorpe was excellent in a GB shirt.
Wasn't Sinfield at 13 when we won 44-0 in the second test? The tests were a lot closer with SoL at 13, so if you're using that series a reason for SoL being a better option than Sinfield then it's a strange argument.
I'm not saying he wasn't a good player for GB, I'm just saying that the ball handling loose is not the type we need for the test matches.
Sinfield started the game at 13, he played about 40 mins and he had a shocker and was consequently dropped for the final test. S O'L was far superior to Sinfield in the second Test at LF, I don't see how it's strange at all.
Joined: Oct 08 2004 Posts: 7343 Location: East Surrey, England
Terry Monster wrote:I'm not saying he wasn't a good player for GB, I'm just saying that the ball handling loose is not the type we need for the test matches. Sinfield started the game at 13, he played about 40 mins and he had a shocker and was consequently dropped for the final test. S O'L was far superior to Sinfield in the second Test at LF, I don't see how it's strange at all.
A lot of this is due to our lack of quality in the halves, the Aussies have several options who can all control and organise a test match, which means they don't need a ball playing loose forward. They can have another ball carrier/defensive workhorse, without expecting a back-row to be particularly creative or organise things.
For contributions, remittances, payments, and all other matters of any responsibility, please refer to someone else.
“The British people love a good hero and a good hate” Lord Northcliffe
Joined: Sep 26 2002 Posts: 11377 Location: Much too far South
Terry Monster wrote:I'm not saying he wasn't a good player for GB, I'm just saying that the ball handling loose is not the type we need for the test matches.
Strange that you included him in a list of failures that didn't make the impact required of a forward on the international stage then.
Terry Monster wrote:Sinfield started the game at 13, he played about 40 mins
He picked up a knock and had missed the week before with a stomach bug.
Terry Monster wrote:and he had a shocker and was consequently dropped for the final test.
Leon Pryce was "dropped" too, despite having a blinder. I wouldn't read too much into that 3rd test team.
Terry Monster wrote:S O'L was far superior to Sinfield in the second Test at LF, I don't see how it's strange at all.
I'm not arguing that SoL isn't a better option, just that comparing on the basis of that series (where Sinfield was ill and carrying a knock) is a little harsh.
FWIW I'd have SoL in there, just think you're being harsh on a few of the lads you singled out, Sculthorpe and Farrell in particular - both of whom have put in tip top performances in wins against Australia.
Joined: Mar 11 2002 Posts: 31082 Location: Gods Own County
FearTheVee wrote:FWIW I'd have SoL in there, just think you're being harsh on a few of the lads you singled out, Sculthorpe and Farrell in particular - both of whom have put in tip top performances in wins against Australia.
Joined: Mar 22 2009 Posts: 1734 Location: Catal Huyuk/Castle Bolton/Dreamland
FearTheVee wrote:Strange that you included him in a list of failures that didn't make the impact required of a forward on the international stage then.
He picked up a knock and had missed the week before with a stomach bug.
Leon Pryce was "dropped" too, despite having a blinder. I wouldn't read too much into that 3rd test team.
I'm not arguing that SoL isn't a better option, just that comparing on the basis of that series (where Sinfield was ill and carrying a knock) is a little harsh.
FWIW I'd have SoL in there, just think you're being harsh on a few of the lads you singled out, Sculthorpe and Farrell in particular - both of whom have put in tip top performances in wins against Australia.
No, I'm not saying they were failures as international players, I'm saying that the concept of having a ball player playing loose has failed us on many occasions. It doesn't work, take a look at the results . I don't think this is the only reason that we have failed either, but I believe it's contributed to our failure.
Sinfield was fit to play in the 2nd test and 3rd test, he played in the second and played poorly, as a result he was dropped for the 3rd and rightly so, because O'L outperformed him.
Why not read to much into it, it was a strong team, selected to win the game against a world class international team, which is exactly what they did.
What other series could I use? It's the only one that we have won, and it came when we played a 'machine' loose forward at the back of the pack. Let's switch to the world cup with a fully fit Sinfield playing at loose forward for us, we come unstuck yet again, they get in the way and want to call the shots that the 6 & 7 should be calling. (Again not at all wholly the ball playing 13's fault, but in my opinion it doesn't help having this time of player in the game at that level)
Like I've said to you above mate Faz and Scully have had some brilliant games for GB, and I don't mean to single them out as 'individual' failed international players, that is not what I'm trying to do, hell I've even named 'arguabley' the greatest player to ever play the game in Hanley. I was just using them as examples that ball playing Loose forwards tend not to work for us in winning series' in the modern era.
Terry Monster wrote:Exactly what is not required, it's been tried for the past however many years and failed miserably. Hanley, Farrell, Scully, Sinfield all ball handlers at 13 and all fail to make the impact that a forward is required to on the international stage. Funnily enough though, when we select a grafter at loose forward (S O'L Vs NZ 2007) then we go on to win the series 3 - 0. In my books there is no room for a extra pair of hands in the international arena, the 'ball handling' loose gets in the way and confuses things. It's got to be a hardworking, tough, mobile and agressive forward that get's through a ton of work and can damage the opposition with quality running in attack and punishing hits in defence. My personal choice would be Gareth Ellis for loose.
So we get a grunt loose forward and all of a sudden we will dismantle NZ and Aus? I can't see that, can you? If it came down to a war of attrition in defence Australia would widdle on us, NZ too for that matter. Until we get a ball handler at half back, instead of runners, we will need all the ball handling capablilties we can get.
PS
How many times did Sculthorpe actually play at loose internationally.
Didn't William Webb Ellis pick up the ball and run, someone should really tell Rugby Union.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 876 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
