I bet they're not. And why would they? They're the best team in the world. We, on the other hand, are going to have to take some chances if we're going to have a chance. On paper there's no squad that could have been picked that would have frightened the Aussies.

I would also have gone for Lunt. I'd probably have Burrow as back up "hooker" though. Not because I think he's better on current form than other options, but because he offers a different threat as an impact sub to anyone else we can pick. Whether it's a threat that can still work at Test level I have my doubts, but again, we're in a position of having to take some risks.

Blimey, no pleasing some people is ther? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24362723 Most mums have no sons in the world cup squad.

Blimey, no pleasing some people is ther? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24362723 Most mums have no sons in the world cup squad.

I'd probably have had Crabtree instead of a Burgess brother or Mossop, Higham for either MM or possibly Burrow(if he is playing at hooker) and Goulding in somewhere. Other than that can't really complain.

I like Crabtree, but I have suspicions about him when the chips are down in big games. Haven't seen any NRL so don't know about the Burgess brothers, but I think Mossop's a terrific player so I wouldn't be leaving him out. Him and Hill wouyld have been the first SL props on my timesheet.

McIlorum is, I think, an0other of those gambles. He'll be aggressive in defence and spiky in attack. He comes with a risk of brain implosion, but again, we have to take risks.

Goulding probably lost out because McNamara has gone for 2 out-and-out centres and the cover comes from the versatility of players like Hardaker, Widdop and Ablett. Again, bit of a risk, but meh. 24 man squad means cover will inevitably be thin in some positions.

Quote ="El Diablo"Blimey, no pleasing some people is ther? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24362723 Most mums have no sons in the world cup squad. '" Leaving the mother's disappointment aside, Luke is by some distance the least dynamic of the four brothers. Not that convincing as a starting option and adds much less impact from the bench compared to his younger twin siblings. On this one I think McNamara has got it just about right.

Quote ="El Diablo"Blimey, no pleasing some people is ther? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24362723 Most mums have no sons in the world cup squad. '" Leaving the mother's disappointment aside, Luke is by some distance the least dynamic of the four brothers. Not that convincing as a starting option and adds much less impact from the bench compared to his younger twin siblings. On this one I think McNamara has got it just about right.

Were none of you lot watching the game on Friday then?

Not think that Matty Smith deserves a place?

In the Dream Team, Lance Todd winner, MoM on Friday. I'd say he was a big game player and certainly the best of a poor bunch. Not exactly have Cronk and Thurston quaking in their boots but worth a place surely?

Yes I was.

No, not really.

Would be a safe and steady option. You can read my points on gambling above. Offers little that Sinfield doesn't. The second half back has to be some sort of threat with the ball in his hands. In my opinion, of course. Myler would have been the man I see as most unfortunate to miss out.

Apart from dropping Chase theres no need for another half. But I think Mcbannana would go for Sinfield and Chase in the halves with Widdop on the bench.

I think Mossop has been poor this season (although he did have a good game on Friday night). I think that MM and Roby are too similar and Higham can offer something different that Roby and MM dont. With Goulding and Charnley partnership at Wigan I think that the sum of the whole is greater than the parts which it wouldn't be with Watkins or Cudjoe as Charnleys centre partner.

I thought one of the few positives from the meaningless Autumn internationals last year was that the opposed training sessions seemed to show that Wtkins and Charnley understood one another pretty well. If everyone's fit then only an insane person would select Goulding ahead of either Watkins or Cudjoe.

Roby and Higham are just the same type of player, only Roby is miles better.

Roby and MM are nothing of the sort alike. MM is not a runner in the slightest, he is a defender, wheras Roby excels more at running.

Ask yourself why Charnley is the only winger to score 30+ tries in the last two seasons. Watkins hardly gave him a pass worthy of the name in the autumn internationals. Plus Goulding's defence is better.

Also re Matty Smith. He is the TOP scrum half this year. Both half backs should be able to kick. Chase cannot play to structure and Widdop has had a poor season when fit. Most people think that because he plays for Melbourne he must be good, but don't realise he was a work in progress there. Anyone could play alongside Cronk, Slater and Smith and look good. He wasn't really asked to do a lot for Melbourne. IMO Ratchford is a better player.

I agree that Mossop has generally had a poor year and that Crabtree should have been nailed on.

I suspect the fact that Charnley is a very good finisher and Wigan have a wll structured attack that creates plenty of overlaps might have played a part.

Opinions are a bit like that. I'm not going to tell you your opinions are wrong. You asked for opinions, I gave you mine.

I don't agree that Smith is the "TOP" scrum half this year. The Dream Team selectors do agree with you though.

Chase is another risk. But I think we have to have the potential to do something different if we're going to beat a technically superior Aussie side. We could pick a steady Eddie, safe squad and reduce the risk of an absolute pasting, but also decrease the already fairly small chance of winning. In my opinion.

Not that my opinion or yours really matter, but that's what the internet is for. That and the distribution of pornography.

Id rather we took a few risks. Not stupid risks, but calculated ones. On their day Hock & Chase could cause the aussies problems. McIllorum could get under their skin.

Its good that we can have a decent discussion about who would be best in our backs, because last time out we were pretty much down to the least poor options.

What is everyone thinking about starting hooker? I would prefer to see MM from the start and bring Roby on a little later. I really don't think Burrow's style will cause the Australians any problems, so would hope for a bench of forwards. And where would Sam Tomkins be best played? I'm arguing with myself that he would be better in the halves with Zak at the back.

I think Roby's a class above any other hooker in this country when he's fit. His sharpness is where the gamble comes. I'd risk it.

Then we're back into calculated gamble territory. I have no doubt in my mind that McIlorum is a better hooker than Rob Burrow. But I'd still put Burrow on the bench. Whether his style as impact sub works against the Aussies may well depend on how much the pack can take out of their pack in the opening 50 minutes or so. Big, heavy forwards get caught out by Burrow's play when they tire. It's one of the few novel weapons we have, and the tried and tested approaches have been, well, tried and tested and they've failed.

My big issue with Tomkins at half is that he's our biggest attacking weapon. And I tink he's at his most effective when he can join the attacking line at slightly unpredictable times. As a first or 2nd receiver, he's less of a threat. It's a shame for Zak Hardaker, who I think is developing into a terrific runner of the ball and is proabably better defensively than Tomkins. But that's the way I'd go.

Also, with some of the risks I'd be taking elsewhere, there needs to be some balancing steadying influence, for which reason I'd like to have both Sinfield and O'Loughlin on the pitch, which ties up the 6 and 13 positions.

I fear that Cronk & Thurston will have a field day against the Chase/Sinfield combo.
Sinfield's lack of pace could be a real embarrassment.

When was the last time any Australian pack was tired out by the England/GB pack after about 50 minutes or so? Isn't it usually the other way around? Do you really believe Burrow is a novel weapon to Australia?

I can't remember it happening. But if we're going to have an international game we've got to at least try to win the matches. Every game plan we've had in a match that counts against the Aussies in my years watching RL has failed. I don't think that means we should stop having game plans.

Yes, Burrow offers certain physical attributes that make him difficult to stop given the right kind of possession. Not unique, but still fairly novel. And certainly different to just picking a 2nd hooker that's basically "Roby Lite" in my opinion.

Further exacerbated by the obvious decline in Sinfield's own playing standards this season. He really should have retired from international RL in 2008 when he thought about it. Unfortunately, one of his biggest fans is the current England coach who believes he will have the same influence at international level as he has done at SL level for Leeds when handed the captaincy and complete control.

We shall see over the next couple of months.

I think we stand a better chance of that this time due to the number of Aussie based players we have at our disposal in the pack.
4 of the forwards fall into this category, 2 of whom are proven at international level backed up by the other 2 who play for one of the top 4 NRL sides & who are regulars in their pack particularly used as impact props. That is an area we've lacked in the past.
But our backs, talented as they are, suffer in comparison to the physicality of both the 'roos & the kiwis.

The last time we beat Australia with a novel game plan was in Melbourne in 1992. Unfortunately, we don't have any players equipped with the ability, the skill or the vision of a Garry Schofield to pull it off.

A hugely lopsided penalty count in England's favour along with a pack of forwards that can hold their own for more than 60 minutes is their only hope of pulling off a shock result. Insistence upon Aussie players having to wear authentic ball and chain accoutrements may also be deemed helpful to the cause.

I'm all for a game plan involving taking risks... that's why I'd have Hock on from the start.

Centres have me worried more than anything. Australia will rip them apart.

For once I agree totally with you.
Subject to fitness, Inglis will be one & they could perm any one from half a dozen even discounting Jamie Lyon.
For my part I'd love to see Michael Jennings partner GI.

Given that we can't really pick the 1992 side, as I'm not sure many of them are match fit, we have to try to come up with a plan based on what we've got. Unless you think just throwing the towel in before the start is the best option? Doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

I'd have Hock on, either from the start or off the bench. Again, he can offer something that none of our other players can (on the field I mean, to head off predictable quips).

I think Cudjoe and Watkins are the best centres we have at our disposal. I think they're both very good players. On paper they're probably out-gunned by their Aussie counterparts (I'll have to take the words of those of you who watch the NRL on that I'm afraid) but that's not a variable the coach can control. They're the best options we have.

Possibly, but by no means guaranteed. James Graham wasn't as effective for the Bulldogs this season playing from the start. I'm loathe to advance the theory that our forwards can match theirs because it's been claimed ad nauseam for the past two decades and I've still to witness any evidence to support such claims.


The two impact Burgii are being looked after at their club. There are several unsung non-Burgii heroes who are doing the essential pack work which tends to go unnoticed. I do wonder which England forwards shall be looking after them in the same way apart from Sam Bro?


Agree completely, and also in terms of skill and vision.