Sean Long - Would you keep him?

[Big Bunny]

Long had an absolute shocker, both defensively and as a goal kicker. He did a little better in attack but it was still probably sub-standard. Would you go for a different halfback in the second Test?

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Long had an absolute shocker, both defensively and as a goal kicker. He did a little better in attack but it was still probably sub-standard. Would you go for a different halfback in the second Test?

Absolute Rubbish!!!.....how about trying to find another scapegoat like the bench of GB!!

He was never selected because of his kicking abilities that is very well documented he was brought into to provide attacking options which he done very well & was rewarded with setting up 2 try's out of nothing for GB!!

Sculthorpe, Long, Senior, Carney where GB's best attcking options by far!!

It was terrible coaching decision to have placed the kicking responsibilites on long....those duties where suppose to be Deacon's objectives which he did when he came on!!.

The best solutuion for GB would be too retain Long at half bring Thorman to Hooker and all the issues will be solved as Thorman is a very astute kicker in general play & when kicking for goals!!

 

[terracesider]

Along with many others, I wouldn't have had picked him in the first place. Both Deacon and Burrow shold be ahead of him for the position.

Hard to separate them. Burrow was outstanding for England "A". Deacon has had a good year. At 0-1 I'd go for Burrow's creativity and ability to do the unexpected.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Along with many others, I wouldn't have had picked him in the first place. Both Deacon and Burrow shold be ahead of him for the position.

Hard to separate them. Burrow was outstanding for England "A". Deacon has had a good year. At 0-1 I'd go for Burrow's creativity and ability to do the unexpected.

Don't you think if Waite thought Burrow was up to the task he would of been selected by now!!

Deacon has the luxery playing for a very solid Bradford side.....if he played for Wakefield he'd be a nothing!!

 

[terracesider]

It's a long time since we could have such an argument, probably about 40 years.

I think Waite is too defensive. Saints haven't been impressing at club level with last nights half back pairing. Ideally, I'd like to have seen Burrow and McGuire operating together, with Scully at 13 where he's the best in the world. There's a trio to worry the Kangaroos. I can also see the alternative argument for Robinson being given a chance at scrum half. Yet given the squad we've got, I give Deacon the nod because he's earned it for the reasons given. Good players don't end up for playing for Wakey anyway. ;-)

 

[deluded pom?]

Long had an absolute shocker, both defensively and as a goal kicker. He did a little better in attack but it was still probably sub-standard. Would you go for a different halfback in the second Test?

Absolute Rubbish!!!.....how about trying to find another scapegoat like the bench of GB!!

He was never selected because of his kicking abilities that is very well documented he was brought into to provide attacking options which he done very well & was rewarded with setting up 2 try's out of nothing for GB!!

Sculthorpe, Long, Senior, Carney where GB's best attcking options by far!!

It was terrible coaching decision to have placed the kicking responsibilites on long....those duties where suppose to be Deacon's objectives which he did when he came on!!.

The best solutuion for GB would be too retain Long at half bring Thorman to Hooker and all the issues will be solved as Thorman is a very astute kicker in general play & when kicking for goals!!

Long was pi$$ poor all round . How can kicking be Deacon`s objectives when he`s sat on the bench ? Waite had obviously told Long he was kicking before kickoff ,he didn`t just take it upon himself to kick ! I personally would go with Deacon from the start next week .He may not be as creative as Long but when Long`s poor he`s terrible .Deacon will provide stiffer defence .

 

[dimitri]

he dropped a couple of balls but so did radlinski and others

i think deacon has to be in the squad and so does long

deacon for his kicking and long for his backline options

id line up this way

6-LONG
7-DEACON
13-SCULTHORPE


simple

 

[JasonE]

Waite cannot afford to be negative now which means out with Connolly & Forshaw and in with Gleeson & Sinfield, I'd probably find a spot on the bench for gamebreaker Danny McGuire.

 

[yakstorm]

The thing with Long, is he can so quickly find form, just like he can lose it. When he finds form, Australia will not know what has hit them, it just do you take the risk of waiting another week for him to find form?

I doubt very much Waite will bring in Thorman, but I do agree its a bit much asking Long to handle the kicking duties.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Long had an absolute shocker, both defensively and as a goal kicker. He did a little better in attack but it was still probably sub-standard. Would you go for a different halfback in the second Test?

Absolute Rubbish!!!.....how about trying to find another scapegoat like the bench of GB!!

He was never selected because of his kicking abilities that is very well documented he was brought into to provide attacking options which he done very well & was rewarded with setting up 2 try's out of nothing for GB!!

Sculthorpe, Long, Senior, Carney where GB's best attcking options by far!!

It was terrible coaching decision to have placed the kicking responsibilites on long....those duties where suppose to be Deacon's objectives which he did when he came on!!.

The best solutuion for GB would be too retain Long at half bring Thorman to Hooker and all the issues will be solved as Thorman is a very astute kicker in general play & when kicking for goals!!

Long was pi$$ poor all round . How can kicking be Deacon`s objectives when he`s sat on the bench ? Waite had obviously told Long he was kicking before kickoff ,he didn`t just take it upon himself to kick ! I personally would go with Deacon from the start next week .He may not be as creative as Long but when Long`s poor he`s terrible .Deacon will provide stiffer defence .

Deacon's strength is his kicking game....that's why it was such a stupid move having him on the bench because he was never going to be inpact player....you where probably better off starting with Deacon & then introducing Long into the fray.

Long was never selected for his kicking abilities....this isn't one of his strengths..he was selected because of his attacking capabilities, Sculthorpe & Farrell should of had the kicking responsibilites while Deacon wasn't on.

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

I don't think we can rely on Deacon to lead the play. For Bradford at club level his task is to take the ball from the hooker and pass it to the next 6ft 7 neanderthal who bashes the defensive line back about 20 metres. After 5 repeats it is then Deacon's task to either kick it long for position or more usually given their pack to grubber it through or bomb it.

Deacon does not attack the defensive line or look for killer passes either. It is just not needed for Bradford when can choose Fielden, Anderson, Peacock, Vagana or Forshaw steaming onto it.

Long on the other hand is one of the few players that would attack the line and try things. Sure he will make mistakes, but if he does find form he can be very, very dangerous. His kicking game is hit and miss at best, but again at club level he didn't do much positional kicking until Tommy Martyn left St Helens, and even then Sculthorpe handles a lot of the booming kicks downfield.

I think the dream combination for mine is as follows:

6. McGuire
7. Long
13. Sculthorpe

14. Burrow

Burrow's pace would be a extremely potent threat late on against a tiring defence. At 3ft 7 him running at the ankles of the likes of Mason and Bailey would cause chaos. If he didn't go through himself, he'd draw the men out of position and create gaps for runners. The Roos were standing back from Long late on at the JJB, so perhaps GB could go for Deacon starting and controlling the kicking with Scully responsible for the playmaking and Long from the bench.

When something goes Long's way he can step up to another level than the one we saw yesterday. He can start to strut like a cockrel when on form, if that happens he's the best option for GB.

 

[vbfg]

Deacon has run at the opposition much more this year than before, that kind of criticism of him is justified but it overstates the case a bit this year. Last night we had no kicking game that pressured Australia at all, and that's somewhere where Deacon shines.

I'd go with Long at 6, Deacon at 7 with Burrow on the bench and Sculthorpe at lock. I wouldn't go for McGuire. He can have a bit of a hot head at times and we need another Newton out there like we need Farrell at stand off.

There'll come a time, and I hope I'm around to see it, when Great Britain take to the field with two recognised half backs playing in the two half back positions.