Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:31 pm  

Aboveusonlypie wrote:

I don't think that tactics are that important in International rugby as Bennett's tactics are hardly complex - unless I'm missing something (which is highly likely!). I think Wane would have been able to motivate the team in a way that Bennett couldn't - he can't really lead a rallying call against the Aussie b'stards-being one himself!

That said I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong about Bennett and I really don't want Wane to be introduced to the hate-a-thon that would inevitably ensue when we lose (I leave that to Wigan fans ).

I shelled out money to see all three of England's games and I feel that we didn't put our best foot forward at all. The atmosphere was like a snooker hall at both Coventry and London. Quite how stadiums that are half full can help the national team I'm not sure. I'd have played the three games at Wigan, Leeds and Hull and to hell with growing the game outside the heartlands until we have a winning team to be proud of, that people will be interested in coming to see play.

Ive said it before, the way RL tries to grow the game is pointless. If a local from Coventry went to the game and was hooked, is he expected to drive up to Widnes every weekend?
We should be trying to increase popularity of the game in Manchester and liverpool (so I think Anfield was a good choice) where there are huge population bases near enough to professional teams (Salford and Saints) to start supporting them.
There is no reason I can see that Salford and St Helens couldn't get similar attendance to Leeds.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:48 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote:

Ive said it before, the way RL tries to grow the game is pointless. If a local from Coventry went to the game and was hooked, is he expected to drive up to Widnes every weekend?
We should be trying to increase popularity of the game in Manchester and liverpool (so I think Anfield was a good choice) where there are huge population bases near enough to professional teams (Salford and Saints) to start supporting them.
There is no reason I can see that Salford and St Helens couldn't get similar attendance to Leeds.

Is the idea not that we are introducing new people to the sport who then watch RL regularly on TV, buy products from RL teams and those advertising at the games, and attend the big events (CC Final, internationals etc) thus making us more marketable so we can attract more money via sponsorship and TV deals? I'd imagine it's far easier to get broadcasters and sponsors interested if we have plenty fans from London watching on tv every week with all that disposable income burning a hole in their pockets as opposed to our traditional working class fan base from northern towns.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:17 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

Is the idea not that we are introducing new people to the sport who then watch RL regularly on TV, buy products from RL teams and those advertising at the games, and attend the big events (CC Final, internationals etc) thus making us more marketable so we can attract more money via sponsorship and TV deals? I'd imagine it's far easier to get broadcasters and sponsors interested if we have plenty fans from London watching on tv every week with all that disposable income burning a hole in their pockets as opposed to our traditional working class fan base from northern towns.

You might increase viewership a bit by playing a game down south, but in manchester and liverpool you could actually get some new FANS who regularly go to games and will watch sky games more often because they follow a team.
Also I don't know if you know this, but there are working class people in London and even some middle class people in the north

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:24 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote:

You might increase viewership a bit by playing a game down south, but in manchester and liverpool you could actually get some new FANS who regularly go to games and will watch sky games more often because they follow a team.
Also I don't know if you know this, but there are working class people in London and even some middle class people in the north

Yeah it's called Harrogate.

Re: Team to face Australia : Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:27 pm  

Madderzahatter wrote:

A few observations having watched it back:
First half we blew three decent chances. Watkins broke down the right and instead of committing the centre and passing inside (where he had more support, he just shipped it out to JM). Real lack of awareness. Then you've got Percival's bombed effort. We were still well in the game after half time and had Burgess gathered that pass by Hodgson he was in under the sticks. In that regard it was a similar story to NZ, we just lack the composure and execution when we're in good field position.

Bennett obviously wasn't happy with the combinations he had and with the World Cup in mind, you can understand why he chose to tinker. After all, he doesn't get a lot of time with the players as it is and needs to look at how all his players handle big pressure situations. At this level you don't get many chances to shine and if you're not doing what WB asks, then you should be swapped out for someone that will.

But then you've got the problem that is Super League. At the moment it just encourages mediocrity. P&R has seen the death of the reserves because teams are too scared of losing SL status. P&R should be scrapped and SL reduced to 10 teams for at least 5 years or so, to get the competition back up to standard. Also the top teams are almost encouraged to play at 60% effort for around 80% of the season. No wonder when it comes to giving 110% over three consecutive matches we're not up to it.

Because going down to 12 has worked wonders, imagine what good 10 will do. The NRL has 16 teams, maybe consider that plays a part in their superiority.

Re: Team to face Australia : Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:49 am  

Big Steve wrote:

I do however agree with Bennetts comment that we are good enough to win but we don't put it together.

There was no one player in the aussie team that were head and shoulders above ours.

They play consistent, they play pretty much error free, they take their chances.

We made as many chances, we didn't take them. Some individuals made more mistakes.

Take cam smith or Thurston and put him in our team, we wpuld still lose as collectively we make too many errors across the park.

Frustrating as hell.

You what?

Re: Team to face Australia : Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:35 am  

^^^

Erm how about - Inglis, Smith, Cronk, Thurston for starters

Re: Team to face Australia : Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:09 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote:

You might increase viewership a bit by playing a game down south, but in manchester and liverpool you could actually get some new FANS who regularly go to games and will watch sky games more often because they follow a team.
Also I don't know if you know this, but there are working class people in London and even some middle class people in the north

Yep, we should hold events in Manchester and Liverpool too, like the Grand Final or the Four Nations Final. Oh wait.....

Yes of course there are working class people in London etc, but I'll wager the average new fan from London has a fair bit more to spend that the average new fan from our heartlands, and is thus more attractive to sponsors.

Re: Team to face Australia : Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:49 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Because going down to 12 has worked wonders, imagine what good 10 will do. The NRL has 16 teams, maybe consider that plays a part in their superiority.

I've never understood the argument for reducing the amount of teams in Super League. All you do is reduce the chances of playing regularly for young English players. Would Luke Gale for example have still been in Super League if we only had ten teams? He only got a move to Bradford after leaving London. If there were only ten teams in the League would he have been picked up at all or would he have to go to a Championship club and gone part time?

All you do by cutting down the teams is deny 40+ players a living and thousands of fans the opportunity to watch Super League.We are nearing saturation point as it is with watching Wigan play Leeds or Saints up to five times a season. Cutting the teams means 'same old, same old' and Sky would pretty soon tire of that.

The argument that it would improve standards is a fallacy.Take a look at the Scottish Premier if you don't believe me. Celtic and Rangers both won European honours in the days when the Scottish League had 22 teams. It now has 10 and the standard is about English League 1 or 2 level (3rd or 4th division in old money)

Re: Team to face Australia : Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:53 pm  

The Aussies did the basics, built pressure, ran hard especially their 2nd rows along the centre channels and waited for their chances to come.

Sure GI made some great runs and was hard to put down, but then some of our players were too. The spine of 9, 7 and 6 were consistently very good not exceptionally outstanding.

We also made breaks, put players through gaps and broke the line, but we made mistakes - we could easily have been 3 scores better through simply catching the ball.

The Aussies didn't make any mistakes.

Imagine if we'd played error free rugby, the score one would be far closer.

That's why I said there was no one head and shoulders above us in the Aussie team.