General Zod. wrote:This afternoon's game is proof of just how ridiculas the Tom Briscoe verses Fox debate.
The hard evidence proved the harsh reality that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth as an international winger and for any FC fan to claim that it was a mistake is nothing shirt of pathetic considering the hard evidence of a second-half scoreline of 16-0 is total vindication that it was the correct decision.
Whilst I partially agree with FC fans that Briscoe "did nothing wrong" and Smith was for the more at fault in terms of defensive positioning, Tom Briscoe does not have the pace to counter long-range threats or neither the agility to turn quick enough to defend short-range kicks which made the Aussie game-plan easy.
In last weeks game against France, Tom Briscoe's lack of agility was exposed when Bosc put a kick through for Pelo and he took an age to turn and it was so obvious to anyone that the Aussie game-plan would be to kick behind Tom Briscoe knowing that by the time he recovered the ball, the defensive line would be smothering him, leaving England on the back foot without any chance of an effective "exit set".
Had Fox played in that position today, whilst he like Tom Briscoe couldn't have done anything about Smith's woeful positioning, the Aussies long range threat is nullified. For instance, where Tom Briscoe was making minimal gain on Inglis, Fox would have cut him down.
I think today's game proved that English players aren't all that bad as they are made out to be with Crabtree proving his worth (to many on this site who said he wouldn't) and also big raps to Westwood who proved me wrong.
If England are to win the final (should they beat NZ) then they have to nullify the the Aussies long-range threat, and if they are to do that properly, then Fox has to play.
The sad thing is, many FC fans would have been happy to leave Tom Briscoe on the pitch and see us get annihilated by 60+ just to save face.
tl;dr: Fox is faster than Briscoe
on that basis lets get Kevin Penny in the squad over Briscoe, he could probably catch him too
General Zod. wrote:This afternoon's game is proof of just how ridiculas the Tom Briscoe verses Fox debate.
The hard evidence proved the harsh reality that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth as an international winger and for any FC fan to claim that it was a mistake is nothing shirt of pathetic considering the hard evidence of a second-half scoreline of 16-0 is total vindication that it was the correct decision.
Whilst I partially agree with FC fans that Briscoe "did nothing wrong" and Smith was for the more at fault in terms of defensive positioning, Tom Briscoe does not have the pace to counter long-range threats or neither the agility to turn quick enough to defend short-range kicks which made the Aussie game-plan easy.
In last weeks game against France, Tom Briscoe's lack of agility was exposed when Bosc put a kick through for Pelo and he took an age to turn and it was so obvious to anyone that the Aussie game-plan would be to kick behind Tom Briscoe knowing that by the time he recovered the ball, the defensive line would be smothering him, leaving England on the back foot without any chance of an effective "exit set".
Had Fox played in that position today, whilst he like Tom Briscoe couldn't have done anything about Smith's woeful positioning, the Aussies long range threat is nullified. For instance, where Tom Briscoe was making minimal gain on Inglis, Fox would have cut him down.
I think today's game proved that English players aren't all that bad as they are made out to be with Crabtree proving his worth (to many on this site who said he wouldn't) and also big raps to Westwood who proved me wrong.
If England are to win the final (should they beat NZ) then they have to nullify the the Aussies long-range threat, and if they are to do that properly, then Fox has to play.
The sad thing is, many FC fans would have been happy to leave Tom Briscoe on the pitch and see us get annihilated by 60+ just to save face.
what a joke
Offiah in his prime could have been on that wing and it'd have made no difference. Briscoe was left stranded by his centre consistently.
but I suppose in your deluded world Fox would have played, scored 20 tries and England would have won
Offiah in his prime could have been on that wing and it'd have made no difference. Briscoe was left stranded by his centre consistently.
but I suppose in your deluded world Fox would have played, scored 20 tries and England would have won
I see the truth hurts for some FC fans.
As I said, I'm not criticising his positional play as that was Smith's fault.
I'm saying his lack of athletic ability was exposed and exploited in terms of his lack of pace and agility and if you can't see that, then you really know nothing about how important the back-three's (i.e. 2 wingers and full-back) role is in modern-day RL.
General Zod. wrote:This afternoon's game is proof of just how ridiculas the Tom Briscoe verses Fox debate.
The hard evidence proved the harsh reality that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth as an international winger and for any FC fan to claim that it was a mistake is nothing shirt of pathetic considering the hard evidence of a second-half scoreline of 16-0 is total vindication that it was the correct decision.
Whilst I partially agree with FC fans that Briscoe "did nothing wrong" and Smith was for the more at fault in terms of defensive positioning, Tom Briscoe does not have the pace to counter long-range threats or neither the agility to turn quick enough to defend short-range kicks which made the Aussie game-plan easy.
In last weeks game against France, Tom Briscoe's lack of agility was exposed when Bosc put a kick through for Pelo and he took an age to turn and it was so obvious to anyone that the Aussie game-plan would be to kick behind Tom Briscoe knowing that by the time he recovered the ball, the defensive line would be smothering him, leaving England on the back foot without any chance of an effective "exit set".
Had Fox played in that position today, whilst he like Tom Briscoe couldn't have done anything about Smith's woeful positioning, the Aussies long range threat is nullified. For instance, where Tom Briscoe was making minimal gain on Inglis, Fox would have cut him down.
I think today's game proved that English players aren't all that bad as they are made out to be with Crabtree proving his worth (to many on this site who said he wouldn't) and also big raps to Westwood who proved me wrong.
If England are to win the final (should they beat NZ) then they have to nullify the the Aussies long-range threat, and if they are to do that properly, then Fox has to play.
The sad thing is, many FC fans would have been happy to leave Tom Briscoe on the pitch and see us get annihilated by 60+ just to save face.
i dont agree, firstly, maguire and smith was way out of posistion defensively and secondly you have to forget that inglis is a freak of nature rugby wise, even if was fox, penny, offiah or dwayne chambers he would of still scored under the posts because he is just that good, the way he runs is very decieving, he probably wasnt even in second gear!
no-one would of got near him and even though we did beat them second half i think that was more down to eastmond coming on and tomkins deciding to show up, not the fact that briscoe is out of his depth.eatmond in for maguire next week i say!!!
garroway wrote:i dont agree, firstly, maguire and smith was way out of posistion defensively and secondly you have to forget that inglis is a freak of nature rugby wise, even if was fox, penny, offiah or dwayne chambers he would of still scored under the posts because he is just that good, the way he runs is very decieving, he probably wasnt even in second gear! no-one would of got near him and even though we did beat them second half i think that was more down to eastmond coming on and tomkins deciding to show up, not the fact that briscoe is out of his depth.eatmond in for maguire next week i say!!!
Totally agree.
However, you obviously don't understand the important role the back three (i.e. 2 wingers & full-back) play in modern RL.
General Zod. wrote:This afternoon's game is proof of just how ridiculas the Tom Briscoe verses Fox debate.
The hard evidence proved the harsh reality that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth as an international winger and for any FC fan to claim that it was a mistake is nothing shirt of pathetic considering the hard evidence of a second-half scoreline of 16-0 is total vindication that it was the correct decision.
Whilst I partially agree with FC fans that Briscoe "did nothing wrong" and Smith was for the more at fault in terms of defensive positioning, Tom Briscoe does not have the pace to counter long-range threats or neither the agility to turn quick enough to defend short-range kicks which made the Aussie game-plan easy.
In last weeks game against France, Tom Briscoe's lack of agility was exposed when Bosc put a kick through for Pelo and he took an age to turn and it was so obvious to anyone that the Aussie game-plan would be to kick behind Tom Briscoe knowing that by the time he recovered the ball, the defensive line would be smothering him, leaving England on the back foot without any chance of an effective "exit set".
Had Fox played in that position today, whilst he like Tom Briscoe couldn't have done anything about Smith's woeful positioning, the Aussies long range threat is nullified. For instance, where Tom Briscoe was making minimal gain on Inglis, Fox would have cut him down.
I think today's game proved that English players aren't all that bad as they are made out to be with Crabtree proving his worth (to many on this site who said he wouldn't) and also big raps to Westwood who proved me wrong.
If England are to win the final (should they beat NZ) then they have to nullify the the Aussies long-range threat, and if they are to do that properly, then Fox has to play.
The sad thing is, many FC fans would have been happy to leave Tom Briscoe on the pitch and see us get annihilated by 60+ just to save face.
Although I think that Briscoe was badly let down by Smith at times, I don't think he did anything to justify his selection ahead of Fox today, although I liked the way he dealt with the 40/20 effort. I like Briscoe as a player and think he's and excellent talent, I just think Fox looks more likely to do something exciting. I'd have been suprised if Fox didn't cut Inglis down too. Shaun Briscoe about neck and neck with Tom when they were chasing him downand Foxy is far faster than Shaun.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 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
