Either way we'll get stuffed by Oz.

Sinfield is too slow and will be shut down easily; Widdop cannot organise and needs Smith and Cronk. Now that would be better...find a reason and good enough incentive for the latter two to represent England.



Now who the heck suggested Watkins as England FB?? Credibility shot to pieces there methinks

I wouldn't agree with this at all. Gareth Widdop is in the best team in the world for a good reason, not just because he is playing with Smith and Cronk.

To keep them under the cap?

Widdop's is fine player however, I think that Myler, Chase, McGuire etc would do just as well playing alongside the pivots Melbourne have.

Indeed.

He's also cheap, I would imagine.

Melbourne's answer to Ian Kirke.

I know. I hate it when people ruin their credibility by suggesting stupid positional switches and other far-fetched team selections.

Steady on.



He was good enough for GH to try and sign him.

So was Kirke..... successfully in fact.

You really think that?

Widdop is a decent half back, playing on limited cash in a team of very expensive Superstars.

Widdopp has very little experience in either organising the Storm or kicking in open play. From what I've seen I think he could do a lot more, and would if it were necessary. Until one of Smith/Cronk retires, Widdopp will remain a bit-part player - then I think we'll see him move up the ranks to take on more responsibility. At the moment he'd have to be played alonsgide Sinfield rather than replace him, if he plays at all.

I'd be really happy if England had a stand off (or scrum half) that could control a game and be dangerous with the ball. But we don't. Sinfield, for all his faults (lack of pace etc) is the sort of player who can keep a team structured throughout a game, and generally shows the sort of calmness and control that is vital. I don't like the fact that Sinfield may be the best stand off option for England, but I fully understand McNamara's reasoning in selecting him.

The difference is Australia have halfbacks who can provide structure and are outstanding playmakers.

BTW George Burgess is looking like a complete monster. If he stays fit and in Souths' first team, he'll be an automatic pick for the bench.

I'd agree with all of that, Brisbane.

Though I would say it's often easier for Australian half backs to fit in and play for Australia as I think the NRL teams play is more similar to each other than it is in SL.

The more I see Tomkins play for Wigan nowadays, the more he seems to be starting to look like a player who doesn't just thrive from having space as a fullback, but also can create that space with his elusive capabilities. Thus the more he plays, the more he looks like a stand-off and not a fullback to me.

For me, we need something special to stop falling embarrassingly short at the international level. We need the four most explosive players in Super League. With this in mind as well as what I've already said regarding Tomkins, this leaves the pivots for England to be Lomax at fullback, Tomkins at 6 and Brough at 7 and Roby at 9. Each of those have the X-factor needed to defeat Australia.,

An "X" factor won't beat Australia without being part of a highly structured unit. The lack of ability to focus on each set of 6 and stay calm under pressure is what undid Sean Long at international level - one game in Sydney being the exception that proved the rule.

Tomkins aside none of those 4 players have an X Factor or anything else that Australia would be that worried about either TBH.

If (and it's a massive if) Tomkin plays at 6, Hardaker on form is different class to Lomax at 1.

Fully agree with Brisbane's last post but one re Sinfield. As for Tomkins, I don't see him enjoying more than a fraction of the attacking opportunities from fullback that he does in SL. If his duties were purely defensive I'd rather see a fit Hardaker at FB.
It'd be utter madness to leave Sam out but even with his undoubted X factor there could be problems ahead.

Tomkins should be picked at fullback IMO. It allows him to be spontaneous, pick and choose where and when he joins in and attack and generally be the sort of off-the-cuff opportunist that can make things happen.

Of course he'll get fewer opportunities against the Aussies than he does against a SL side, but he still needs to be in the best position to take them.

I wouldn't actually object ot pairing Lomax with Sinfield in the halves, with the right threat in the 3/4 (for me ths means Atkins playing alongside Watkins).

There might be better options than this defensively, but I'm sick of England/GB being ultra-conservative against the Aussies and still getting beaten. I'd rather we at least posed a few questions and played some rugby. I'm all for pragmatism to get results, but if it isn't getting the results....

When we have beaten Australia in the past we have done it by matching them up front, taking our chances but most importantly by putting them under pressure. Under pressure they are just like everyone else but they are used to dealing with levels of pressure in the NRL that our players hardly ever experience so to do that takes a special effort.
The forwards have to make all their tackles, hold discipline on defence and not give away stupid penalties and they have to control the ball when they hit it up (no stupid offload attempts - that's what we want the Aussies to start trying in desperation). Most important of all though is we have to kick well. A good kicking game requires not just a good kicker but it needs a good PTB to kick off. You can have the best kicker in the world but if he gets the ball after a rubbish previous play he can't do anything. The play before the kick is absolutely vital, if the kicker can take the ball going forward it's going to be a good kick.
So if you are picking a team puting all your "explosive" players in at once is planning for failure. Lomax might sound like a great idea at 1 with Tomkins at 6 etc, but how do you apply pressure? Sinfield is smart enough to run a game plan that may put the Aussies under pressure, Widdop plays the game at that level week in week out and again is probably the guy who will be patient, make his tackles, not cough the ball or throw stupid passes.
I would have Sinny and Widdop in the halves and Sam at 1 where he can pick his spot to attack if we get near the Aussie line with the ball.

Depends what you mean by "rugby". Throwing the ball all over was the game plan back in the ealry late 70's and 80's because it was thought we had a skill advantage over the Aussies. Back then we had ball players who had skills way beyond what we have now and it still didn't work.
So for me "rugby" means not hitting the ball one up - we have to change the point of attack but sensibly - using FGB's little offloads, two or three passes from the ruck to get a bit of space, no stupid offloads but hit, spin and pop a few times to keep the defence guessing. Then back it all up with mistake free handling and defence and most importantly kick well off the right tackle.
Then when we get in the right part of the field Tomkins, Watkins, Hall and all dangerous and FFS let's not panic on the last play near their line. I'd prefer us to all that right which we have yet to see.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting just chucking the ball about at random and reaching for the champagne stuff.

What I have in mind is more about selecting players with the attacking skills to cause some problems defensively, in the right areas, not just 13 players who can tackle. We'll need everyone to tackle, but I'd just like to see McNamara take a bit of a punt on the less certain defensive qualities of some players who can offer something with the ball. Not the ones (Yeaman for example) who are a total liability in defence. But sooner or later we need to scorre some tries.

I agree about that. We will need to score points and we do need players who can create, attack and take chances on offer. I'd hate to see a pack of forwards for example who are just going to hit the ball or are picked for high workrates. A bit of variety is required and a bit of skill and brains.
There is still a big part of me that would really have liked to see Sinfield playing at 13 for club and country instead of at 6. I don't believe he's too small to play 13 and I'm not a fan of biff and bash 13's - 13's are ball players as far as I'm concerned (as you could guess from my user name), and I'd like to see some genuine halves, but it's too late now - he's been 6 for so long it wouldn't make any sense to change that.

I agree with your analysis DHM. When we competed with the Aussies in the early 90s it was from cutting out the mistakes but also having the ability to take chances when they came along.

In the end it's a balancing act between your players with "impact" and ones that can be trusted to make the right decisions and not make unforced errors. That's why I think selecting Gareth Hock might be fine versus France or PNG but never against Australia.

As for No13 I think Sam Burgess has the skills and power to play there for England and has proved that in the past. Sinfield and Widdop at halfback to me is a no brainer. Chase is like Hock IMO, too ill disciplined and error prone to be a success in Tests versus Australia.

Sadly we son't have either genuine (in the old fashioned sense) half backs, or too many ball-playing forwards.

I just can't see the likes of Myler offering enough at Test level (does well in a very dominant Wire team, and is a good player, but no more than that for me). Brough is a possibility though. And while I agree he shouldn't be at 1, I 'd still be interested in getting Lomax in the 7 shirt. Defence not always the best, but can be worked on. Burrow is, of course, another option but I think his die is cast as interchange 9, and he is, whether purists like it or not, incredibly effective in that role.

O'Loughlin in the back row offers a nice half-way house - really good, reliable tackler and with decent enough hands, plus some organisational skills. Hock offers variety and skill, sadly not brains... But that's why I think he should be on the bench as I just don't see where else that cutting edge will come from in the pack. I don't see the point in selecting him only against the lower ranked sides. We don't need to chance him against those teams as we should be able to punch holes in their defence anyway.

In the end, we can't pick a side that's going to give the Aussies nightmares, because we just don't have those players. So the objective of the exercise has to be picking a team that is the best we can put out and get close enough that they could cause an upset if a few bounces of the ball go their way.

I'm with BR and DHM on this. You need structure at the top level. Off the cuff RL is great when it comes off and sometimes its what's need but, if it goes wrong it causes players to panic and you end up with someone like Westwood kicking the ball anywhere in desperation. The key though is the forwards. Over the last few years we've bought into the myth that we can match Aus up front but in reality as a unit we haven't. What our forwards do without the ball in terms of running lines, and technique in contact is just as important as the amount of meters and carries they make. Aus have been far better in this area and as a result gain better field position so are able to execute a better kick and build more pressure. As DHM said earlier it doesn't matter who you have kicking the ball if they're 30m from their own line with 2 or 3 defenders pressuring the kick chances are it won't be a good kick.

For me I think it's important to have atleast 2 or 3 players on the field who can kick the ball. If we go with just Sinfield chances are he'll just be marked out of the game. That's why I'd go with Sinfield at 6 and Brough at 7. 2 halves who can organise, pass and kick. It also gives you a left foot and right foot combination. Brough also has that bit of extra pace. Then I'd have Tomkins at full back, and Roby at hooker. That gives us 3 kicking options plus Roby can kick out of DH.

My team would be:

Tomkins
Briscoe/Charnley
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Sinfield
Brough
Graham
Roby
Hill
Ellis
Westwood
Burgess

Burrow
Crabtree
G Burgess
Hock

That's probably the the most physically gifted back line we've had for sometime, and we have some very big, mobile ball playing forwards I just hope we can get them all fit and in form for the world cup.

Good defences - and the Australians are traditionally sound defensively, both individually and collectively - need to be challenged.

The easiest way to challenge a defensive line is to make the players in it make decisions at speed. Defenders hate it. Give it to the big lad at first receiver and let him run it straight into them, and they'll gobble it up all day. Make a defender, particularly one who is physically or mentally fatigued, pick between a runner on his inside shoulder and another on his outside and he'll struggle to get in the right position to make an effective tackle.

So whatever else England can or can't do, they need to find a structure that the players can execute which puts uncertainty in the mind of the Australian defenders. Lots of movement, lots of options on both sides for the man with the ball. Isolate the opposition's weakest defenders and go at them.

The best example of this currently in SL is Wigan, perhaps McNamara could be looking at their set plays and structures for ways they could be implemented at international level?

I remain to be convinced that McNamara is up to the job.