I decided to watch the highlights of the WC semi from last year again in my dinner break. Apart from the obvious loss of Sam Burgess, I see another problem. Sinfield may have missed a tackle at the end (we actually had 5 players under the posts marking 2 kiwis at the PTB, so not convinced we weren't doomed anyway), but he was also responsible for opening up the defence with 2 beautifully timed passes for England tries. He may not be fleet of foot, but I am slightly struggling to see where that bit of guile is coming from in the current team, and we don't have enough frightening ball carriers not to need it.

Word has it scrummaging is still quite important in RU. I doubt George Burgess has ever contested a scrum in his life.

As well as being able to kick a good HB needs to be able to draw a defender & put someone through a gap, dummy & go through a gap, support a man who makes a break & finish off the break. Otherwise they are mediocre. Apart from Brough, Smith is no worse than any other British based scrum half in that respect.

Smith looks ok at Wigan, but that's behind a pack that's usually dominant and next to the best stand-off in the competition.

I don't remember him being any good at Salford when he was playing in an underdog team, which is probably more relevant for how things will be against Australia.

Like others, would have gone with Tomkins and Widdop in the halves and Hardaker at fullback, with the added bonus that you get a fullback who can catch and defend his line and one-on-one.

i too would have gone for this option
i also have concerns about farrell and Joel tomkins in the back row against australia and nz as they will get steam rollered imo and wont be able to offer much in attack

i recall that the majority of wigan fans were outraged that england chose sinny as england captain irrespective of form prior to the tournaments?
funny how biscuit bones is unavailable for selection again eh despite being named england captain prior to the tournament?

i am hoping for at least one win against samoa and 2 respectable defeats to australia and new zealand,but we could also end up with some serious drubbings without a doubt

If Australia don't get some props from somewhere then they'll be the ones worried about getting steamrollered.

Farrell might be a bit lightweight, but Tomkins won't be troubled unduly by the physical side of the game.

It's a pity Australia are so good everywhere else, because our props ought to destroy them up the middle.

One things for sure though.we should get to see how good a player Widdop is, as the front row should be able to set a platform for him to do the business.

Well, after all that I'd put Matty Smith as England's Man Of The Match against Samoa.

As for our much-vaunted pack...apart from Graham, who was just ok, every one of them was poor.

Now that's odd, because I'd have given MotM to Chris Hill, great stint off the bench today.

The England pack were "poor"? In what way?

Consistently made metres and set the platform for Smith to put up some excellent attacking kicks. Some individual errors, but you can say that right across the side pretty much.

England will be better for the run-out and additional time to acclimatise. Certainly didn't see anything in the Australia pack to scare them for next week.

Agreed Andy, whilst the English forwards were average in some aspects like ball retention, they did consistently get us up the park. If I had to find fault it would be that the back row carried very little threat with ball to in hand.

Oh and that was the worst Australian performance in living memory, if they play anything like that against England we will have the best chance of beating them for years...

Not with Tomkins at fullback. All they need to do is put up an average high kick and chase it. Likelihood is he will drop it. Gives a chance to even the averagest of sides.

Much like Australia's full-backs today then.

I was only commenting on the forwards. Sam Tompkins couldn't catch a dose in a brothel...

Since Sean Long is helping out Samoa, can we add 'treachery' to his long list of crimes?

To be fair to Sean Long, that's the most influence he's had on an international game at any time in his career.

I didn't think the Burgess brothers had anywhere near the impact on the go forward they do in the NRL. We never really used them close to the line in the way South Sydney do. Watkins worries me in defence he seems to come out of the line too often leaving huge gaps. I wouldn't be playing Tomkins at FB a kicker as good as Cronk will surely expose him even more than the Somoans did today. We need to improve our ball retention we will not be able give that much ball away against either the Kiwis or the Aussies

All on for next week beat the Aussies - they didn't look brilliant today - and they are out.

Hardacker for me is THE best defensive in the world for me, he reads the game exceptionally well and he should be at 1, especially against Australia.
Tomkins can easily slot in at 6, he played the majority of his career at 6 and will take on the line and let Widdop do the organising.

Against Australia

1. Hardacker
2. Charnley
3. Shenton
4. Watkins
5. Hall
6. Tomkins
7. Widdop
8. Hill
9. Clark
10. Graham
11. Whitehead
12. Farrell
13. O'Loughlin

14. Hodgson
15. T.Burgess
16. G.Burgess
17. Ratchford.

Clark, Hill, Graham, Whitehead, Farrell are all very fit guys who are more than capable of doing big stints.
Ratchford brings options as the only position he didn't play for Warrington last year was prop.

He had a decent game in the win in Sydney in 2006!

I'd go with this.

I wouldn't. Although a fan of Ratchford I don't think International RL is a place to carry a utility player on the bench. Whilst our back rows aren't great I'd rather just go with one of them than consider Ratchford could cover IF an injury happen.

The point about Ratchford is his ability to make an impact - if we get behind and we pack the bench with forwards we don't have any options? Our back row looks too small although if biscuits bones does play he will give it a bit more size

Cool. We're in an era when the full-back is generally the club's most potent attacking player.

Saying Hardaker is the [i"Best Defensive Full Back"[/i (+ [i"in the world"[/i - depending on location) is like saying [i"Pick Danny Wellbeck - the busiest striker in England".[/i

Hardaker is no Wellens though. He's solid at the back, has a good kick return and if he chimes into the line properly can cause havoc. We're also in an era when attacking fullbacks also have to be able to defend. Tomkins is OK with tackling and balls on the ground, but if we're being honest not pretty much useless when it comes to the high ball.

Hardaker isn't exactly a slouch in attack though is he? We lost by a try to Australia, Tomkins missed tackle on Jennings.
The Inglis disallowed try, if there hadn't been an obstruction in the build up, he would have been at fault for that too.

Defence wins games, you're a bright guy Mugwump...maybe not so in rugby but hey, no one's perfect.