I disagree. Sinfield was a deserved MOM on Saturday who at 6 gave England complete control of the match. Widdop came on only in the last 10 minutes when the game was won. Sinfield did the same against Australia playing a crucial role in 3 out of our 4 tries and creating several other opportunities that others failed to take. When Widdop came on and Sinfield reverted to the pack we looked less organised.



Widdop is not a creater or an organiser but is a runner with the creative work in the NRL coming from Cooper Cronk and Smith. In this series to date neither Chase nor Widdop have exerted any control over the games. This control has come mainly from Sinfield and against NZ help from Roby.



The current objective is to win this series not to plan for the future. Therefore our best chance is a repeat performance of a patient controlled game with fully completed sets and minimum errors. Sinfield provides our best chance to achieve this at this point in time.



IMO we should play Widdop from the start in place of Yeaman to give us extra pace and attacking options out wide.

i wait and see i think most people have been judging on previous performances but i think he has done well this tourney i think it has helped that he can take a step back and be able to be the organizing halfback rather than having to do both the organisation and the creativity with him having chase as a partner i think it gives him time to organise get his troops where he needs them and this is the reason i think he is doing well this tournament with having such a creative and unpredictable partner sinfield is able to sit back and do his usual game and the game that he is good at compared to previous tournaments when he has partnered danny maguire yes he does this week in week out but with lack of creativity in the england team in general in seasons past sinfield HAD to take the role of creative half back which is not his game so to be fair i think he is enjoying playing the style he knows ad well done on the MOM last night it was thoroughly deserved

Outstanding player but not an international stand off - England should have had the game won by half time but for three poor decisions by the stand off. NZ were poor and England got away with it they will not have it so easy on Saturday. Split second decisions make the difference at this level not the case at SL level. Look what happened last night - Brears was superb until the Aussies cut his space then he looked very ordinary. The likes of Thurston and Lockyer have another mental gear when required not sure any SL halves possess that ability. It will be interesting to see how Lomax and Gaskill develop as pair - they look like they have the x factor.



The problem is if he plays he has to control everything as he does at Leeds - if he plays 6 or 13 the attacking plays will be identical so starting Widdop and playing Sinfield at 13 will not work. He has to play so you have to live with his limitations.



On the hospital passes how JJB is still walking is a testiment to his toughness - Sinfield throws 4/5 of those every game mostly to JJB.

Wow. 3 capital letters to inflect a point and an acronym in a wasteland of grammar and punctuation. My head hurts.

I agree. We've been planning for the future for the last 30 years, maybe we ought to plan for next week for a change.

Can't imagine how a controlled, patient game with low errors and completed sets would be of any use against the Aussies. We should just impatiently throw the ball all over, make loads of mistakes (to lull the opposition into a false sense of security) and aim for a low completion rate so we can spend more time tackling them. We've been trying that since I was 10, so it's bound to work someday?



Here's a thought though, put the squeeze on Australia, complete sets, kick deep and chase well, tackle first up and control the ball when you have it. Then take chances when the percentages look right. Have leaders all over the pitch, at prop, 9 and 6 who can control the ball and move the Aussies around and have exciting players who can take chances and create things out of nothing. Then have back row forwards who all give absolutely everything every game to do the donkey work.

McBannana has managed to put together just such a group of players. It also seems that club rivalries have been put to bed in the squad (who actually look like a team - not a bunch of players who usually hate each other) and they are all playing for each other.

We would have been much closer to Australia - may even have turned them over - if we hadn't lost Ellis, Graham and had Peacock playing on one leg for most of the game. We turned NZ over comfortably, they were never winning that game.



Only change I would make is to drop Widdop if Ellis is fit. Seems harsh on him but frankly we need four forwards on the bench against Australia. I wouldn't start messing with Yeaman and Briscoe, they were targetted a lot by NZ and held up well.

I Agree Completely with the Chase comment.



I'd leave Sinfield at 6 and move McGuire to 7.



Let Sinfield organise/create and get Widdop to Interchange with McGuire from the Bench.



Chase is just making up the Numbers when there's no need to do so.

The only problem with playing McGuire is that the VT would just simply catch fire with the moaning overload that would result. It would need shutting down, much in the same way the Wigan board had to be pulled down and sold to Tesco's when they lost to Stains in the GF eliminator.

I can see what you mean regards Widopp. I'm not sure McNamara knows how to use him off the bench and it seems a waste of a sub if he's only going to bring him on with 10 minutes to go. I'd still like to see him come on for Roby earlier in the game and move Sinfield to 9.

We'd need to Implementation a Firewall between the VT and the Moaning Barstewards with a Deny Any Moaning Rule.



This may or may not work.



Sorry if I come across as a Techie IT Geek.......but I am lol

I don't think the halves should change too much. I certainly don't think McGuire is the answer. I think Widdop has been under used, but thats part of the piece for a utility man. I think I'd prefer to see him start in the halves, but the coach has gone for chase

Building a team is about finding a balance - there's little point having two half-backs who are inconsistent, unpredictable but potentially brilliant although neither has a kicking game. With the likes of Chase and Tomkins in the team, what's needed is a steady head who can push the team around the park and into position for the flair players to work their magic.



With ball in hand, I thought Saturday was possibly Sinfield's weakest game of the tournament - the quick catch and read for Graham's try apart. His timing was a little off, particularly at the line.



With the boot however, as good an open field kicking display as you'll see. Everything from his own half found the floor and made the Kiwi back three go fetch it. The high stuff was usually in a position for the chasers to compete.

I've just passed out through lack of oxygen half way through the above can anyone tell me what he wrote?

PS shouldn't the thread title read "Kevin Sinfield Deprecation Society"?