Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:50 am  

Unless they pick up injuries Charnley and Hall will play every minute of every game.
Makinson would have been on the sidelines, besides the only player he should shift is Burgess.

Front row picks itself.

Saints players were never going to get a game when Roby dropped out.

Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:36 am  

Twentyman wrote:

Aye, all teams have their off days mate. The Australians hardly ever have 2 off days in a row...unfortunately.

yea the aussie first team does.....dont think that set of replacements are quite good enough..(untill they play england that is).....21 players withdrawing thats ridiculous..i wouldn't pick half of those who made lame excuses not to play again..if i were tim sheens!

Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:05 am  

I only saw the highlights of the England game, but Hall seems to be drawn in a few times yesterday.

Not saying makinson would replace him, but people seem to be having a go at Shenton, he seemed alright on the highlights.

Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:44 am  

RIGSBY wrote:

yea the aussie first team does.....dont think that set of replacements are quite good enough..(untill they play england that is).....21 players withdrawing thats ridiculous..i wouldn't pick half of those who made lame excuses not to play again..if i were tim sheens!

Rugby is a tough tough game and most players finish the back end of the year playing with injuries. I think players at some point need to recoup, rest and get right for the following season just like robes as.

I don't believe any Aussie would turn down a chance to play for their country.

Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:40 pm  

RIGSBY wrote:

yea the aussie first team does.....dont think that set of replacements are quite good enough..(untill they play england that is).....21 players withdrawing thats ridiculous..i wouldn't pick half of those who made lame excuses not to play again..if i were tim sheens!

21 players didn't withdraw from Australia. 11 players withdrew and half of those most people wouldn't recognise the names of. Assuming Cherry Evans recovers from whatever injury he sustained against NZ and Inglis recovers from his virus (very charitable of him, playing with a stomach bug) then Slater aside and possibly a couple of forwards included they won't be much different from the usual. Cronk is still there and so is Cameron Smith.

And besides, if they get booted out of the comp by England maybe it'll be a wake up call to the myopic NRL that internationals do actually matter. If over 47,000 are happy to turn up for a double header in Brisbane then clearly the fans want internationals. The NRL and media down under need to catch up.

Re: England : Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:53 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

21 players didn't withdraw from Australia. 11 players withdrew and half of those most people wouldn't recognise the names of. Assuming Cherry Evans recovers from whatever injury he sustained against NZ and Inglis recovers from his virus (very charitable of him, playing with a stomach bug) then Slater aside and possibly a couple of forwards included they won't be much different from the usual. Cronk is still there and so is Cameron Smith.

And besides, if they get booted out of the comp by England maybe it'll be a wake up call to the myopic NRL that internationals do actually matter. If over 47,000 are happy to turn up for a double header in Brisbane then clearly the fans want internationals. The NRL and media down under need to catch up.

Agree. I'm going for a lie down.
I've just posted this on the Wigan site.

"Here's something that probably won't get mentioned on the "national press"

There were 2,000 more fans at the Suncorp yesterday than at the same venue last week for the Australia v NZ Rugby Union game.

Let's hope that our own RL press at least mention it."

Re: England : Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:17 am  

SaintsFan - the bigger losses were Hayne, and in particular Thurston, who is by some distance the best playmaker in the world. Of the forwards probably the biggest loss was Scott, who is a fantastic prop.

Australia looked poor against NZ in part because they lost DCE and Inglis during the game. How would England look if they lost Tomkins and Widdop during the game in terms of attack?

England's defence was really bad, and the ball retention awful in the first half. If they 'defend' like that Australia could play their team from the second half vs NZ and still win comfortably.

Re: England : Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:20 pm  

The Kiwis were too big for the Aussies on the weekend. You can't face man mountains without props. It's difficult enough trying to front up against them when you've got your first choice pack on the field. The Kiwis knew they could make the yardage and they were pummeling them in the second half. I'd say we'll never have a better chance but I've said that enough times over the years to know that you can't take anything for granted against the Australians. They are the ultimate big game team.

Re: England : Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:14 am  

England have named an unchanged side for the Australia game. O'loughlin mustn't have recovered and whitehead must have slept with McNamara's missus.

Re: England : Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:11 am  

The Chief wrote:

England have named an unchanged side for the Australia game. O'loughlin mustn't have recovered and whitehead must have slept with McNamara's missus.

What's the point in taking lockers if he's not going to play?