I think he was being sarcastic!

I nicked this from the saints board





I couldn't resist! It's been making me chuckle since I read it







we lose by 30? It's sini's fault

Does he not know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

FWIW I agree with him. Sinfield was excellent at dummy half and we lost something when he wasn't playing there.

A slight case of watching a game with tinted specs , I think

(Saints stained one's)

Not really. The poster isent calling Sinfield. He is saying that England and Sinfield played better when he was at Hooker. Sam Burgess was a stand out at LF.

Maybe the forehead could ask the king how to pass a ball. Especially from left to right

maybe the saints squad could get him to tell them how not to bottle grand finals

Sinfield's problems at hooker come from the fact he doesn't play there all the time. I'd fully expect a part-time hooker to occasionally fluff quickly picking the ball off the ground and passing it. If he were an Aussie, he'd almost certainly be a hooker - there are no loose forwards like him in the NRL and he's too slow for a stand off. You'll never see an Aussie rep side needing a fourth 'ball handler' beyond 6,7 and 9.



I do think that he has a 'rugby brain', unlike far too many of our players (including a lot of our halfbacks), and if I were the England coach I'd simply tell him to keep practising the hooking role because that's where he'll play.



I'm glad he's starting to feel at home for England.

I prefer that system, too many cooks with an organising 13, had sinfield developed as a 9 at club level with a Burgess type at 13 what could this have done for Mcguires development??

Ask Scott Donald, or the any of the Cats team who played in the GF semi if Sinfield can pass to his right.