Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20418 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
NickyKiss wrote:Sinfield was a bit of a victim of being moved around at Leeds between 6 and 13 and also for GB/England, between 6, 13 and also 9. I look at this current England team and he's Harry Smith and if he was slotted in around Williams, Clark, Radley etc, then he can control the team and kick us around the field. It almost feels like he was playing with the wrong number on his back during his career. He wasn't big enough to be a 13 and he wasn't quick enough or enough of a running threat to play at 6. He played at 7 in that World Cup and the perception started to change but he then misses that tackle and we forget everything else.
100% agree.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
His best games were at 9 and 7, positions he didn't really play at club level. Very unusual for that to happen. I remember Wally Lewis commenting very favourably about him after the first time he played at 9.
I went through a few of his games for GB and in addition to being moved around the place, when he was played in the halves one time, he was paired with Paul Deacon! Talk about a lack of balance. They then played him at loose forward in a series against New Zealand but with a halfback pairing of Leon Pryce and Rob Burrow, so you then have a job on to control the side and kick us around the field when you're in the middle of the field and having to do a lot of donkey work in defence.
The game is different now but if you had the players of that time and was setting them up now, you'd probably have Leon Pryce at fullback, Rob Burrow at stand off, Sinfield at scrum half and then Lockers (or a Gaz Ellis/Sam Burgess) at loose foward and there is no way you'd pair Sinfield and Deacon at 6 and 7. I probably bagged Sinfield more than most at the time but looking back, he was left out to dry a bit.
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20418 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
NickyKiss wrote:I went through a few of his games for GB and in addition to being moved around the place, when he was played in the halves one time, he was paired with Paul Deacon! Talk about a lack of balance. They then played him at loose forward in a series against New Zealand but with a halfback pairing of Leon Pryce and Rob Burrow, so you then have a job on to control the side and kick us around the field when you're in the middle of the field and having to do a lot of donkey work in defence.
The game is different now but if you had the players of that time and was setting them up now, you'd probably have Leon Pryce at fullback, Rob Burrow at stand off, Sinfield at scrum half and then Lockers (or a Gaz Ellis/Sam Burgess) at loose foward and there is no way you'd pair Sinfield and Deacon at 6 and 7. I probably bagged Sinfield more than most at the time but looking back, he was left out to dry a bit.
We’ve moved towards a half back and 5/8th model these days as 7 & 6.
Back then though we often had one half controlling one side of the field and one controlling the other basically a left side and right side half back.
In last 5 years generally we’ve moved away from that but these things are circular and I’m guessing within the next 10/15 years we will see it return.
In that old system Sinfield and Deacon could work, but I agree the way the game is played today they would pretty much cancel each other out.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 31939 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
The Bulls tried Pryce at fullback but it didn't work out as his positioning in defence and ability to catch a high kick weren't very good. He also wanted to play No6 above all else. We brought in Harris as he was seen as more "reliable" but in fact by 2006 he was more of an organiser than a runner and we paired him with Deacon which effectively meant two of a kind as halfbacks and no pace.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20418 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
Leon Pryce playing as the 5/8th on the game today would be ridiculously good….if you could keep him off the Benson & Hedges and out of the boozer he would be nearly unplayable on that role.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
Joined: Feb 13 2008 Posts: 444 Location: Egham-ish
jonh wrote:I actually think it’s harsh that Sinfield is remembered for that miss.
He had a great game that day and one on one on the back foot against a 2013 Shaun Johnson off a quick play the ball I’m not sure many if any in the world make that tackle under such fatigue.
Seem to remember it’s a frantic game towards the end but we restrict NZ to 5 tackles out of their half, they are 40 yards from our line and one of the Burgess twins gives away a really poor high tackle giving them another 6 in our attacking zone to give them the field position for SJ to do what he did.
Absolutely. It was George Burgess who gave away that penalty and as soon as he did I knew we were on our way out. England were absolutely out on their feet and their was no way they could take another set of six that close to the line. But I don't even blame Burgess that much because, again, the penalty came about through fatigue. We lost that game earlier by not putting it to bed when we had the advantage. I remember at the time Kiwi fans getting angry because a lot of England fans were saying the wrong team won and they felt that was not giving their team credit. I can only speak for myself but what I meant was that, had it been Australia or New Zealand with the possession and territory that we had enjoyed throughout the match they would have made sure of it. The game would not have still been in the balance that late. But, for Sinfield, he had played well that day and he got stepped by one of the most dangerous running halves the modern game has seen, when he was already knackered. That shouldn't be the defining moment of Sinfield's international career.
"I have this system where I support England first, then the other Home Nations, then the rest of the Commonwealth, then the rest of the World, then France."
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20418 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
tyr wrote:Absolutely. It was George Burgess who gave away that penalty and as soon as he did I knew we were on our way out. England were absolutely out on their feet and their was no way they could take another set of six that close to the line. But I don't even blame Burgess that much because, again, the penalty came about through fatigue. We lost that game earlier by not putting it to bed when we had the advantage. I remember at the time Kiwi fans getting angry because a lot of England fans were saying the wrong team won and they felt that was not giving their team credit. I can only speak for myself but what I meant was that, had it been Australia or New Zealand with the possession and territory that we had enjoyed throughout the match they would have made sure of it. The game would not have still been in the balance that late. But, for Sinfield, he had played well that day and he got stepped by one of the most dangerous running halves the modern game has seen, when he was already knackered. That shouldn't be the defining moment of Sinfield's international career.
In regards Burgess involvement, it still winds me up as yes he was fatigued, but the threat was neutralised he came in late if I remember correctly to a tackle that was pretty much complete.
I dare say though he was running on instinct at the time though so tough to point the finger.
I’m sure Sam made a significant error that day too that lead to a soft try, may be wrong though.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
Mark_P1973 wrote:@moto748, it wont let me quote your text
it will be interesting to see how Saints play Welsby and Sailor, as there is a possibility that Welsby may move into the halves and Sailor to FB, which would really bugger up our international chances . Stu / YG or FTV will probably have a better view than any of us do on that one though
and on the point yourself and Bullseye make re players switching for some unknown reason we've done that since the late 80s, moving loose forwards into 6,7, or 9, when they dont play there week in week out. Hopefully now, players are picked on merit, in their positions they play each week, so we arent putting square peg into round hole. We have a depth of talent across our game, with a couple of admittedly weaker positions as we've been discussing, but thats more, our 1st choice FB and Centres are fine, but depth beyond those players
Sailor has been given the No.6 shirt which is quite telling.
Quite why his number has been announced in isolation I’ve no idea.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 229 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
