If your criteria for discounting the opposition is that GB scored a lot of points against them, you're never going to count a good win.

WTF, my criteria is one that allows me to form an opinion on a side that includes a number of third choice players and one that gets bitch slapped by a GB side who pretty much did as they pleased.



Do you really think a recent competitive NZ side would get a 44 point touch up by GB? Come on Richie, you are attempting (not for the first time) to defend the indefensible.

From what I`ve seen of him I`d have to disagree, completely incapable of controlling a big game at the moment.

As for accusations of bias, why would you worry about that? The track record of Aussie whingeing mean that`s innevitable. And if it does get to that a few crying Aussies will just be the icing on the cake.

So do we discount GB/England performances that don't include what you personally don't consider first choice players, if we get beaten?



A recent competitive side did get spanked by GB. Why do you have such a hard time accepting success? You had problems with it with the Rhinos, and now your country.

Ganson has a history of bias when officiating GB/England, it's probably why the Aussies are comfortable with the appointment and why England's job just got even harder.



St Helens will also come to dread his name in games just as Leeds did with Holdsworth.

In all honsty Richie I think you're really labouring a point.



Martin Johnson has to name a squad today knowing that he has 20 injuries to his squad. Given that this is the case then whichever touring side gives us a humping will not take as much pleasure in doing so had they been playing an undoubted first choice 15.



When the Kiwis came to the UK they brought what they had already declared to be an injury ravaged side with some other serious omissions. To have beated that side they brought, whilst commendable is no indicator of where we are relatively speaking because we already knew it was not their best 17. To infer that it was is just plain silly.

It was their best 17 available.

It wasn't their best 17 possible, but then you never will get that.



Interesting how many are willing to dismiss our success because of weaknesses in the opposition, but not our failures because of weaknesses in our own team.

Don't get me wrong, you can only beat what is in front of you. But let's do it another way. Leeds success in the Challenge cup came at the expense of all the big teams in the competition who came before us in our march to Wembley. London IIRC had Steele Retchless snatch a last gasp win at Cas to take them there. I feel wholly justified in celebrating that win as a result .



Warrington this year won the thing having defeated the might of York and Fev before negotiating the banana skin of KR then beating Wigan. Did they deserve to win, yes they did, are they the Challenge Cup champions, yes they are. Did they beat the form teams in the country to get there and win it? No they did not. Doesn't take away from a fans pleasure at seeing it happen but you wouldn't describe Warrington as the best side in the country off the back of it.

Not sure what your point is there? Do you give a different value to the Challenge Cup each year according to the run-in the winners had?



It has never been used to define the best team in the country.

You are making yourself look silly now but that is your perogotive.



If you thinking beating a severly understength NZ side is as clear an indicator of performance and the kudos that comes with beating a near full strength side then you go for it.



I really cant be bothered bashing my head against the wall.

It`s not like you to use conjecture to prove a point.



I don`t like the way he referees sometimes, but surely the English players wilｌ　べべってｒすいてｄ地おてゃｔ



Ａｎｄ　ｎｏｗ　Ｉ‘ｍ　ｒｅａｌｌｙ　ｈａｖｉｎｇ　ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍｓ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｔｈｉｓ　Ｊａｐａｎｅｓｅ　ｋｅｙｂｏａｒｄ．．．．

意儀ヴぇ鵜ｐ