RFL World Cup Review

[RB]

5 Months in the making and this is what they came up with.

In summary, the review found:
• Players said they did not perform to their full ability
• Although there were different social groups the players said these did not affect team performance
• Players and coaching staff felt they needed more time together on the training field in advance of the tournament
• Injuries pre-tour affected the balance of the squad
• Players recognised a greater need for emphasis on sports science
• Rule interpretations, which were only agreed the week before the tournament, were a factor
• Preparation and logistics were very good

[Peter]

5 Months in the making and this is what they came up with.

In summary, the review found:
• Players said they did not perform to their full ability
• Although there were different social groups the players said these did not affect team performance
• Players and coaching staff felt they needed more time together on the training field in advance of the tournament
• Injuries pre-tour affected the balance of the squad
• Players recognised a greater need for emphasis on sports science
• Rule interpretations, which were only agreed the week before the tournament, were a factor
• Preparation and logistics were very good

Other than the last point and the first point the rest is bunkum.

Most people would have realised the first point fairly quickly from watching the games.

The last point could could have been put as "The team was good in training, and the travel arrangement were OK".

Mr Lewis must have thought long and hard in preparing this report.

[widnes_tiger]

5 Months in the making and this is what they came up with.

In summary, the review found:
• Players said they did not perform to their full ability - Because they know they will be playing in the next game anyway because it doesn't go on form
• Although there were different social groups the players said these did not affect team performance - leeds and saints players didnt get along but they dont want to look embrassed
• Players and coaching staff felt they needed more time together on the training field in advance of the tournament - this doesn't explain why we got worst the more they got time together
• Injuries pre-tour affected the balance of the squad - why take injured players in the 1st place, there's a bag full of players out there that could take there place
• Players recognised a greater need for emphasis on sports science - they had a lesson on muscules
• Rule interpretations, which were only agreed the week before the tournament, were a factor - why didnt this effect the other teams
• Preparation and logistics were very good - not hard aget you've been doing it for X amount of years

[efcviking]

Maybe the reason is that there are not enough talented English players?
As it is with Enlgand football.

[Sandgroper]

Or even, maybe, the southern hemisphere players are better, fitter, more focused, and sharper?  No, it can't be that, our game is much more exciting!

[Peter]

Or even, maybe, the southern hemisphere players are better, fitter, more focused, and sharper?  No, it can't be that, our game is much more exciting!

They play to their own rules. Since the influx of Aussie players you do not need to play the ball properly, and cannot play in forward.

[Huggybear]

5 Months in the making and this is what they came up with.

In summary, the review found:
• Players said they did not perform to their full ability
......

That one IS particularly interesting. If a player felt they played badly in Game 1 then (regardless of knowing the coach has no choice but to continue picking them due to a poor squad on the whole, they should be playing on pride) surely they'd be determined to play to their ability in Game 2. If a player felt they played badly in Game 1 and Game 2 then surely they'd be determined to play to their ability in Game 3. If a player felt they played badly in Game 1 and Game 2 and Game 3 then surely they'd bedetermined to play to their ability in Game 4.... and so on.  Basically that excuse only washes for explaining one poor game.

It's laying the blame on the players themselves rather than the RFL for not producing good enough players. i.e. it just doesn't happen that players don't play to their ability for their country over 4 games - the players were playing to their ability in at least some games but they just don't have the required ability. That's not their fault, it's the RFLs responsibility to ensure better players are produced.

It's all ok though, the RFL are implying that crowd attendances are up and that Easter saw record attendances. Oh hang on a sec, match crowd attendances are down, oh I don't know anymore!

[King Viking]

Would you rather the RFL came out and said "crowds are down during the Easter period"? Rugby league struggles to get media attention as it is.

And as for the "record attendances" it was a record attendance. It didn't say "record average attendance" did it.

[Huggybear]

And as for the "record attendances" it was a record attendance. It didn't say "record average attendance" did it.

Lol.

Breaking news! This is the best Thursday 16th April 2009 there has ever been!

[King Viking]

Lol.

Just wait until the news that breaks tomorrow. It'll give you something else to moan about.

[Huggybear]

Well if news did come out tomorrow then at least it WOULD be news. Why does the RFL need to tell us that 2 extra SL games were played over Easter?