They both had a habit of going missing too.

I think the Aussies would disagree that Sculthorpe went missing against them.

They rated him very highly from what I can gather having been out there following GB/England a couple of times.

Scully never took a backward step against the Aussies, quite the opposite.

No, I'm not saying they were failures as international players, I'm saying that the concept of having a ball player playing loose has failed us on many occasions. It doesn't work, take a look at the results . I don't think this is the only reason that we have failed either, but I believe it's contributed to our failure.

Sinfield was fit to play in the 2nd test and 3rd test, he played in the second and played poorly, as a result he was dropped for the 3rd and rightly so, because O'L outperformed him.

Why not read to much into it, it was a strong team, selected to win the game against a world class international team, which is exactly what they did.

What other series could I use? It's the only one that we have won, and it came when we played a 'machine' loose forward at the back of the pack. Let's switch to the world cup with a fully fit Sinfield playing at loose forward for us, we come unstuck yet again, they get in the way and want to call the shots that the 6 & 7 should be calling. (Again not at all wholly the ball playing 13's fault, but in my opinion it doesn't help having this time of player in the game at that level)

Like I've said to you above mate Faz and Scully have had some brilliant games for GB, and I don't mean to single them out as 'individual' failed international players, that is not what I'm trying to do, hell I've even named 'arguabley' the greatest player to ever play the game in Hanley. I was just using them as examples that ball playing Loose forwards tend not to work for us in winning series' in the modern era.

So we get a grunt loose forward and all of a sudden we will dismantle NZ and Aus? I can't see that, can you? If it came down to a war of attrition in defence Australia would widdle on us, NZ too for that matter. Until we get a ball handler at half back, instead of runners, we will need all the ball handling capablilties we can get.

PS

How many times did Sculthorpe actually play at loose internationally.

O'Loughlin > Westerman > Purdham > Clough > Wild

Ball handling loose has been tried and tried and tried again. It does not work, it's as simple as that. We need as much grunt on the field to match the grunt of the opposition. Ball handlers at HB? Gregory, Edwards, Long, Deacon, they are all ball handlers arn't they? Still little to no success.

Westerman - Clough - O Loughlin - Purdham - Wild

Clough second best? IMO, i think you're wrong.

Westerman, Clough, Purdham are not good enough for England.

Clough before O'Loughlin next joke

Who is then?

Westerman is much better then Wild & Purdham, playing in the middle he tackles all day and out wide he rips edge defences to bits and sets his centre & winger up all game long, he also has a kicking game.

I've already stated that I'd prefer to see Ellis play at Loose forward, if not Ellis then O'Loughlin. Those are the two I would have before anybody. Then I would select Wilkin, Langley and Wild before I selected Westerman.

We all know that Westerman isnt the finished article but at 19ish he's a fantastic prospect who would probably benefit from international game time.
Personally though I agree, there's a few i'd stick there before him right now.
As your back three I'd go Ellis, O'L, Burgess with Hock on a bench supported by 2 props and a hooker/utility

At full strength I'd personally have a back row of:

-Ellis-Burgess-
- O'loughlin-

Westerman in the squad.

With that added I agree

Hock is a bit iffy for me, if he was to sort out his discipline and handling errors he would be a brilliant compliment coming off the bench for Ellis or Burgess, but at the minute he might be too much of a risk against the Aussies/Kiwis.

But saying that, I can't think of an English back rower that makes the same sort of impact off the bench that Hock does when he is totally focussed on his Rugby and is ripping the opposition defence to pieces.

Our most dangerous forwards have to start for me and for me Gareth Hock is just about the most dangerous second rower we have. I'd have him and Burgess in the back row with Ellis locking the scrum. I'd probably take Westerman in the squad but I don't think he offers us enough to take it to the Kangaroos.

=white.................Hock=white........Burgess
Apps: =white....... 15 =white......... 14
Errors: =white..... 16 =white......... 19
Penalties: =white. 8 =white........... 8

Does errors only include knock ons or wayward offloads too though?

Ah, stats. Don't go telling half the story:

Hock Burgess
Carries: 215 248
Tackles: 272 385

Greater involvement will create greater opportunities for error.

And say the reasons to why Westerman is better than Purdham, what does Westerman possess that Purdham lacks???

Tackles missed
Wild 532 28
hock 272 34
Burgess 385 42
Purdham 447 20
Westerman 373 30 .

so if you want a tackling machine at loose forward or second row before bringing on an attacking player. WILD is the man.

Wild's played two more games than Purdham.

not seen much of these 2 then i take it ??