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.

No it's not, it's like saying Hardaker's excellent defence and kick returns make him a better all-round fullback than Tomkins. However Tomkins excellent attacking skills can be used effectively at stand off. That, along with Hardaker's attack from full back, might bring a better balance to the team.

That's what it's like saying because that's what people are actually saying.

Shuffling several England players into unfamiliar positions in order to accommodate the serial miscreant at full back is an idiotic strategy, just like it was when having to accommodate the internationally underwhelming Sinfield at 6.

Or like Australia do when everyone's fit and play four fullbacks in the threequarters? By "several" I assume you mean 1 - Tomkins. Not sure anybody else is suggesting any other player needs to move position.

Ha ha, the old Sinfield debate! A stand off who's defence splitting passes almost got us into the WC final. I've listened all year to NRL know all's telling me how good Widdop is but can honestly say I haven't seen anything in the 2 games that has backed it up. Other than his banana kick at goal of course - that was impressive. Smith has also lead a charmed life. Hardaker by plenty, rat boy in the halves.

Shifting Tomkins to 6...a position he spent more years of his life playing than fullback, revolutionary.

Hardaker for Charnley imo

Does ZH have a pure wingers instinct though?

I would say he does.he started with us on the wing and scored a few fantastic tries in the corner.he would be a fantastic winger now imo but was always destined to move inside and quickly went into centre and now FB.Australia have had no problem putting the likes of Boyd And Hayne on the wing in the past because they have better all round abilities than most other wingers. So should we.

Yes, I most certainly do mean "several".

If the serial miscreant was allocated jersey 1, both Tomkins and Widdop would have to be shuffled around and Smith would most likely be shuffled out of the 17 altogether.

I count 3 changes to the makeup of the team right there (just to accommodate the serial miscreant) which by most peoples definition would equate to "several".

As I alluded to earlier... idiotic.

If you're that desperate for Hardaker to get a gig, how about him replacing someone who has been absolute pants and an AWOL or turnstile liability in defence?

That'd be Hardaker for Watkins then.

Considering you said "shuffling into unfamiliar positions" then trying to include Matty Smith being left out of the 17 altogether as a reshuffling unfamiliar position is a push even for you in your ever decreasing trolling attempts???

So that'd be 2 reshuffling changes then.....better inform the Oxford Collins Dictionary that 'several' now means 'two'.

Idoitic you claimed.......yes, yes you are.

I think he'd be fine there. Defensively he's as sound as anybody in the squad (in the backs) both tackling and dealing with kicks. He's always had a finishers talent for scoring tries, his issue at centre and FB has been creating tries for others outside him. On the wing he wouldn't have that problem.

I'm not desperate at all for him to get a gig, i just think he is a much better all round player than Charnley and a better option with his kick returns and safety under the kick and we lose nothing in attack.

Hardaker is a steady centre but i would never play him there for England unless we had no other option.I agree Watkins has been very shaky at times, i stated that on the Watkins thread, and if he was to be dropped it would be justified.However, we have Shenton on the sidelines who didn't do a lot wrong and would be the man to take over were he to be left out.

You're so funny sometimes. "Serial Miscreant"

Did your irony gland rupture during your defence of Catalans trying to sign Todd Carney? Or do you reserve all that bu$h!tt for Leeds players only?

Was that Hall or Hardaker in the background of that Hodgson student digs Video?