Ablett and Faz to miss out for me.

Big ask of Widdop after so long out with just a few run outs in between. It's a gamble he had to take though but it shouldn't have come to this.

Lockers should have been squad captain.
Brough should be in at 6.
Smith should have been in at 7.
Goulding should have been in over Cudjoe / Watkins, although there has been no evidence to suggest their inclusion was a bad selection to date.
Roby has outperformed Micky in my opinion.
Westwood, Hill and Sam Burgess have been immense.
Sinfield is there for his kicking ability only, but replace him with Brough and you have a solution from the off.
Crazy squad in my opinion, but we are in the semi so lets not be too downhearted.
Glad Chase has been dropped no matter the reason, not a team player despite the benefits of his inclusion in the past.
Wane / McDermott in!!

Changing the halves for a Semi final. Just shows how useless McBanana is

Tomkins
Charnley
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Widdop
Sinfield
Hill
Roby
Graham
S Burgess
Westwood
O'Loughlin

G Burgess
Mossop
Ferres
Ablett

Keep the halves and Roby consistent for 80 minutes. Ablett on the bench to cover injuries in the backs. Burrow and Farrell missing out.

This. Has Widdop even play 6 for a full game for England? This should have been done two weeks ago at the latest.

He can't really do a worse job than Chase. The decision has been made and even though it's probably too late, it's the right decision.

Correct decision. To little to late though. And I assume it's for all the wrong reasons.

Unless his hand has been forced this seems a barmy decision. Why give Chase so much game time with the team then at a crucial stage think he’s now not the man for the job, he had a good idea after the first game this game could be the outcome, why didn’t the light come on then?.

Unless England win of course , then its genius .

Either that or it would just prove everyone else right and he should have started with Widdop

Maybe he has been looking at the amount of flack he has received in the Press and on various message boards regarding his choice of halfbacks, so he decided on a change.

He seems to have got half of it right anyway.

On a more serious note, will McBanana go the whole hog and put Widdop to fullback and Sam to halfback, which would really make NZ think, or at least think of that option to mix things up a bit if needs be.

If he does its because he's read your post!

I don't understand dropping one of our most physical players against arguably the biggest pack in the comp.

Agree, we need to make life as uncomfortable as possible for Isaac Luke, and as good a player as James Roby is he doesn't have that "aggression" of McIlorum.
I would have started with McIlorum for the first twenty with the specific instruction to "get at Luke" and then brought Roby on.

Spot on. Yes Micky gives pens away but no more than Westwood or Ablett.

Can you imagine Australia leaving Cameron Smith on the bench and picking a more aggressive player, just for aggression's sake, against NZ?

It's a silly argument IMO - Roby is simply a better player and offers more to the team so he plays.

McBanana will go has he did in one of the earlier matches, spell Roby just after halftime with Sinfield going to hooker and bringing Burrows on. The problem is it may be to late by then.

Cam Smith has been switched to 13 on numerous occasions to allow them to change the game with Farah at 9 or Cronk prior to DL retiring.

How will we change the game if we need to do so?

Roby is a strike player. That's why he was so fantastic for Saints when he came on for Cunningham. He can't perform to his best in an all out battle as he isn't that type of player. Cam Smith on the other hand is.

Roby is only a strike/impact player if you are still wandering around in 2006. He's been Saints best player by a ridiculous margin since Cunningham retired, as an 80 minute player.

Roby has more effective distribution, running game and defence (the stats suggest MM missed almost 4 times more of his tackles than Roby in SL 2013). I'm genuinely struggling to see any logic to preferring an inferior 80 minute hooker, and it appears to be logic that only exists on this board to be honest.

Physicality and aggression will only get you so far. When people consistently list aggression as a players main strength, it highlights the fact that his playing ability is limited.

Doing the occasional big hit is the one and only facet of the game that you could argue McIlorum does better than Roby. It therefore makes no sense whatsoever to play him. We need our best PLAYERS on the field v NZ, not our supposedly toughest men.

how many games played? and against what opposition?.....stats dont tell the whole truth.

McIlorum can't play. With Sinfield at first receiver the combination is far too slow and McNamara ain't going to drop Sinfield.
Roby often runs from dh then bypasses the first receiver and that is what will work. McIlorum is brilliant at Wigan as the first receivers Green/Smith know his game and he knows theirs. When he picks the ball up at dh they are already moving and that's how Wigan's structure works.
Sinfield's movement is slow and now slower than ever. He has to kick as he doesn't have the pace to run at the defensive line.
It has to be Roby over Mic Mac under McNamara's team selection with Sinfield at first receiver.

The stat I'm talking about is misses as a proportion of tackles made. If you're concerned about number of games you could use Roby 2012; I doubt it would make any difference. Roby has also been playing in a weaker side.

As for opposition, that's tricky - I think all MM's games were against Melbourne Storm and Roby played Salford a couple of dozen times.

im sure that cant be right