He's also a massive handful for any defence, nobody likes playing against Hock, he's as tough as they come, you need x factor players and he is most certainly one of them.

I think its a strong squad overall, you can always make cases for players who missed out but i don't think we can have many arguments. The real surprise for me was young Thomas Burgess over big Earl other than that i think he's picked well.

Anybody doubting Farrell's inclusion should check out his stats on the SL site. The lad is a machine.

Higham should have had a look in too I think.
Roby hasn't played much recently but he will not let anyone down.
Tom burgess is a strange choice. Not seen his performances.
Not a bad squad though.

Tom B's probably a bit lucky but he'd started to look the part for Souths at the end of the season. George should be first choice on the bench and Tom to play only if one of the others gets injured.

As for Hock, I fully understand the risk associated with picking him, but anybody who thinks that England would be better off picking low-risk forwards wants their head examining. To have any chance at all England will need to have forwards with real threat, and Hock at his best has it in spades.

In the past before every tournament we've heard how GB/England's pack is as good as/better than Australia, only to see them wiped out when it matters. For once I think we may have a pack which can hold its own physically, but I still question the ability to read the game in defence and link properly with the backs in attack (especially dummy runners) compared to Australia.

As for the backs, well lets just hope they all play to their best.

To be frank, I think England v Aus will pan out a lot like Souths vs Manly recently - big forwards for England doing quite well, only for the wheels to fall off once the oposition start throwing the ball around.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I appreciate Rangi Chase is a talented player but he was born in New Zealand, was raised in New Zealand, lived the greatest amount of time in New Zealand. He really should be playing for Australia or Samoa.

I am quite happy with the squad selection, think not picking Crabtree was the right decision because although he is a good player he just isn't aggressive enough, which is why I think hock and mcilorum is a good shout as they're Aggressive players who aren't afraid of getting stuck in to anyone and we need that in the side.

good exposure on Talk Sport too last night with McNamara and Tomkins on the show and then a lot of discussion about the squad

Ratchford will show on Saturday that he is one of the very best players in this country.

Could well pick up the Harry Sunderland trophy.

I'm happy with that squad. Lunt is unlucky to miss out, but the only bad choice (imo) is Tom Burgess over Crabtree. Tom isn't even cracking Souths' first team every week when his (pretty much average) brother Luke is.

Good squad, not massively different to what I would go with. I think it’s a pretty well balanced squad as well which possibly explains some of the omissions.

Lunt for example is a very good player, but what do you get from him? An inferior version of Roby in my opinion. Mcilorum on the other hand offers a different type of hooker, possibly not as skilful or as quick around the ruck as Lunt or Roby but bigger, stronger, and a lot more aggressive. Burrow on the other hand is a complete one off who can absolutely destroy a defence.

Similarly with Ratchford v Hardaker, Hardaker will cover you Fullback, Centre and Wing very well, Ratchford fullback centre and stand off. We already have a player capable of playing Fullback centre and Stand off in Widdop, plenty of half back cover with Sinfield and Chase, Tomkins, Burrow, that’s 5 pretty experienced halves, with Roby and O’loughlin able to fill in in a pinch, and if we got really really desperate Ablett has played there before. Im not sure we need another utility half. Whereas on the wing whilst we do have 3 wingers, but if one of them goes down we need to start shifting centres to wing and 2nd rows to centre.

In both those examples its not really a question of who is the better player, but who offers more to the 24 man squad.

The only out and out ‘decisions’ between players I see up for debate is T Burgess ahead of Crabtree, and Farrell ahead of Kirmond and Ferres.

I dont think anyone has doubted Farrell's inclusion.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24362723BURGII LATEST - Julie heartbroken over her and Luke's omission from England squad![/url

She was on Radio2 this morning too. Good work from the RFL PR team in the last couple of days.

A 19 man Knights squad has been named for the Samoa game

Ben Cockayne
Dom Crosby
Kieran Dixon
Chris Green
Josh Hodgson
Josh Jones
Ben Jones-Bishop
Michael Lawrence
Jonathan Lomax
Tom Makinson
Richard Myler
Sam Powell
Stefan Ratchford
Dan Sarginson
Brad Singleton
Scott Taylor
Iain Thornley
Liam Watts
Elliott Whitehead

In the backs, I think there are some good players who would grace the full England squad (e.g. Myler, Lomax, Jones-Bishop & Ratchford) but there is only Scott Taylor for me in the forwards who looks like he could step up

These Burgess Brothers are marketing gold. Just what RL has been missing for years. Players with Star Quality off the pitch.

So where does this leave Brett Feres, in so much that he's going to S Africa with the England WC Squad, albeit he's not in the squad, and neither is he in the Knights squad ?

I can understand that we need back-up players, but surely they should be in one squad or the other, not just left in the wilderness ?

I guess McNamara is thinking that Ferres is the next in line for a call up should injuries strike (probably with O’Loughlin as the main worry). He will want him in South Africa running the plays etc rather than with the Knights. Although this logic is shot down a bit with the Grand Final representatives not flying out with the rest of the squad

Excellent stuff! We should be marketing the hell out of them. The story got plenty of coverage in a the national press today!

I don't agree with all of that squad, but on the hole I am happier with it than I have been for a good few years.

The knights squad looks like it could be competitive at the top level too. Bodes well for the coming years.

1. Lomax
2. Jones-Bishop
3. Sarginson
4. Thornley
5. Makinson
6. Ratchford
7. Myler
8. Taylor
9. Hodgson
10. Watts
11. Jones
12. Whitehead
13. Singleton

14. Crosby
15. Green
16. Lawrence
17. Cockayne (covering the backs, and Lomax/Sarginson can always push into the pivots)

Dixon, Powell

would be my pick. Is this the first game we expect the Knights to lose? Will be an interesting match, looking forward to it.

How long did it take to turn the conversation to football?

Lol, ay. Obviously I don't listen to that rubbish station, so how long were they on for, and how much actual RL did they talk about??

Anyway, regarding Thomas (as it seems he prefers to be known as) Burgess, I would have selected A.Morley instead.

Interview was from 5 till about 5.15, then Durham and Gough carried on talking about it for another 20mins or so before i got out of my car