I've got involved because you're massively upselling England's WC performances in support of your Steve McNamara hobby horse. The general tenor of your last few posts is 'indisputably' dressing opinion as fact. Not only that as an erudite fellow who doesn't choose his words randomly, my guess is that it was your 'undisputed' intention to do so. In respect of the specific post 'nobody' is quite a conclusive term.

It was more the fact that FA is actually trying to tell us that it made the COUNTRY proud. It might have made a few thousand RL fans proud but most of the country either would not have been aware that the game was on, or actually cared two hoots about it, given the relative low standing that RL has on a nationwide scale.



Anyway, I thought it was we Scots that took pride in glorious failure. It seems we are passing on the baton now.

TBH this World Cup has raised the profile of the game higher than it's been since 1995 IMO. That might not be saying much but it's a start.



As for failure at least it was glorious. Plenty of times it's not even been that

So, nothing to say on the subject. Again. Noted.





I have never met Mcnamara so he isn't my "buddy". Brough being MoS was fair enough but in a World 13 side is actually silly. But the main reason your irrelevant move to the Brough situation is pointless is because it was Brough who said he did not want to be considered for England, but threw his lot in with your lot.



Regardless of that, a coach has to pick what he sees as his strongest players. Not everyone will agree, the point is that - however you want to try to spin it - any national coach deciding (if he did) not to pick player X or player Y is irrelevant to how well he can coach.





The rational people are judging the coaching by the performances, not the bare results. You are just creaming yourself cos a McNamara team didn't make the final. How they played isn't even remotely relevant to your unhealthy anti-Mac obsession, so you ignore it.





I was at the game. I'd bet a lot of money you weren't. The overwhelming feeling was that England had done exceptionally well, that they had played at a very high level and had they won it would have been deserved. I didn't encounter a single person with your glass 95% empty reaction. It's like your "it might have made a few thousand RL fans proud" jibe. At Wembley alone there were over 70,000, not "a few", and millions watched on TV. But you seem happiest in detracting from anything positive. And all just because it is McNamara. I bet if he wan't the coach you'd be praising the effort same as everyone else. but sadly your hate of McNamara has made you an irrational and irredeemable grouch.



I think that across the whole media I haven't in fact read any respected commentator who shares your miserable assessments. Most, here and abroad seem to have been highly impressed with how far England have come. But you are, of course, perfectly entitled to plough your lonely anti-Mac furrow, however futile it now is.

Just putting assorted personalities to one side for a moment in my opinion the key lesson from the WC was that it shows how important the international arena is for the profile of the game, and it's ability to attract sponsorship. So whoever ends up at the helm we need to sort out a proper international program with more games.



The competition was always going to be a three horse race and the results show we lost to the other two contenders, though but for a collective 80 sec brain fart from experienced players we should really be in the final. So I agree that our performance against both Australia and NZ showed we have become competitive but in some ways I would be more concerned by the performances against Italy, Ireland and Fiji - both Oz and NZ kept their foot on the gas against the 2nd tier opponents for the full 80 minutes - and that's the level of concentration the England team needs to have if we are finally to close the gap.



Lets hope then that whoever is the coach gets more support, regular fixtures against the top teams - and perhaps more importantly support from the SL clubs to put aside their narrow interests and support the international game because that is the surest route to wider coverage and sponsorship.

Whoa right there, I don't have a McNamara hobby horse. I didn't start the thread! I didn’t even come in till about page bleedin 7 when I first posted my two penn'orth and that is it. If people then post at me, are you saying I am not allowed to respond? How does that work, then?



As for your general point, everyone on here has their opinions and that's fookin obviously what they are. Surely you aren’t one of these anals who argue every single forum post needs to bear an “in my opinion” caveat?



If you are, then why did you not rebuke the OP in his OP which said



It stated as a fact that McNamara had failed miserably. It didn’t say “in my opinion”. Of course, I KNOW that is ME stating his opinion. But the same logic applies to every other post on a forum so do me a favour and give it a rest.



Bullseye posted:



He didn’t say “in his opinion” we have improved. Why don’t you berate him for claiming it is a fact?



Tigertot stated baldly:



he didn’t feel the need to say it is, ultimately, just his opinion. You didn’t pull him up for dressing his opinion up as fact. Why not?



If I am not allowed to state things then why are you? The sort of things you have specified are normal conversation. In exactly the same way as You said:



You didn’t say “In my opinion, Burgess and Graham were outstanding.” Of course, any reasonable person would agree with you, but the point is, this is the sort of “fact” that isn’t, literally, a fact yet a device which people reasonably use all the time.



In the second paragraph of that post you stated the following as facts:



· The halves have been poor

· Sinfield has not demonstrated he should have been picked above Brough.

· His kicking game yesterday was shocking

· it should have been Brough/Widdop from the start.



How it works on a forum, as in any informal convo, is that you say “The halves have been poor”; You might even say “Indisputably the halves have been poor. FACT” It doesn’t matter. It just means you, personally, wouldn’t brook any disagreement and anyone who does disagree is, in your opinion, wrong. Someone else may say “No, the halves have been good”; and you might then discuss your respective views. To instead analyse the claim and launch into some sterile discussion as to whether or not you were in fact “dressing up” your opinions that the halves have been poor/Sinfield’s kicking game was shocking, as “facts “ is pointless and silly. At least in the case of ME it cam as no surprise as he does anal rather well, but you?

A mid season Test series would never get off the ground for numerous reasons, one being logistics, two, opposition from NRL sides having to release their Kiwis and Aussies for rep duties. And the NZ warriors releasing majority of their side. Nice idea, but it will not get off the ground. McNamara proved once again he hasn't got it at top level.

How about a break in both leagues that weekend?

How about the cream of English talent play the cream of overseas talent in SL in a mid-season series?

And I am not bald. FACT.

I could be soon as this debate is nearly makinge pull my hair out. In my opinion

Utterly shameless ham!! You flew a big red flag to all us 'anti-McNamara trolls' and now you're all wounded. Just one point on forum etiquette, when you spout utter sh1£e on a forum and call it 'indisputable fact' - get ready. This is merely a humble opinion.



However, an indisputable fact, supported by evidence and tested hypothesis, is that McNamara should be shot.