The truth hurts I see.

Come back with a reasoned debate - if you're capable of course...

Well try reading some of your own posts back and you will soon "calibrate" your drivel meter.

Are you saying that a Briscoe being taken off directly resulted in England scoring the points they did in the second half and had he of played the second half outside of Eastmond it would have been a whitewash??

You honestly dont think he would have done the same job or better than smith in the second half???

u really are uneducated arent u

Absolutely. The removal of Tom Briscoe removed the Aussie's option of repeatedly kicking behind him exposing his lack of pace to tackle him whilst he's on the back-foot, so the Aussie defensive line would have the momentum to prevent England from completing an effective exit set. The pattern would then be repeated until the Aussies built enough pressure to score.

Alternatively, the Aussies could take a chance form long range knowing that Tom Briscoe just does not have the pace to stop them.


No chance what-so-ever, no - for the reasons I have mentioned above.


You can't deal with the fact the hard evidence of the game today is proof that Tom Briscoe was way, way out of his depth.

Irony-meter overload.

i want my £5 peter

I have started a topic on the virtual terrace to try and get a few unbiased views.... and how strange there dont appear to be many people who agree with you???

Obviously they are not the same level of intelligence as your good self

Ok.

Why do you think Tony Smith took him off at half-time?

To take Lee Smith out of the firing line would be a decent guess?

I can obviously see that changes needed to be made although I feel that smith should have gone as his display at centre was dire defensively.

Also in my opinion he did nothing on the wing that briscoe couldn't .

I think he was made a scapegoat