Pundit who said “England can’t beat Samoa” has say on whether Golden Point is a good system in big games

Yesterday, England saw just how easy it is to lose in Golden Point extra time.

After doing the hard stuff to come back from behind against Samoa at the Emirates Stadium in the Rugby League World Cup semi-finals, they were their own worst enemy as the match entered sudden death territory.

They knocked on in their first set of Golden Point and got away with it when Elliot Whitehead blocked the first drop goal attempt but from the ensuing set England gave away possession through a forward pass.

This time there would be no mistake from Samoa with Stephen Crichton notching the winning drop goal to ensure they will meet Australia in the final next week at Old Trafford.

Nonetheless, it raises the age old debate about the merits of Golden Point and whether it’s a good way to decide a game.

In the eyes of Phil Gould, it is not the way to decide a big match.

Despite the fact the NRL very rarely sees draws due to the introduction of Golden Point after games, he believes some games deserve to be a draw.

He famously said prior to the opening game between England and Samoa that England “can’t beat” Matt Parish’s side. Though wrong about the opener, his views were vindicated yesterday and he, as ever, was willing to speak about the game including saying that Golden Point shouldn’t decide big games.

He said on Twitter: “10 minutes each way was more appropriate. I now think that’s how all games should be decided. 5 mins each way. If it’s still a draw, then it’s a draw. Some games deserve a draw. Finals should not be decided with golden point.”

10 minutes each way was more appropriate. I now think that’s how all games should be decided. 5 mins each way. If it’s still a draw, then it’s a draw. Some games deserve a draw. Finals should not be decided with golden point. https://t.co/5fbCLrc6G9

— Phil Gould (@PhilGould15) November 13, 2022