What is everyone thinking about starting hooker? I would prefer to see MM from the start and bring Roby on a little later. I really don't think Burrow's style will cause the Australians any problems, so would hope for a bench of forwards. And where would Sam Tomkins be best played? I'm arguing with myself that he would be better in the halves with Zak at the back.

I think Roby's a class above any other hooker in this country when he's fit. His sharpness is where the gamble comes. I'd risk it.

Then we're back into calculated gamble territory. I have no doubt in my mind that McIlorum is a better hooker than Rob Burrow. But I'd still put Burrow on the bench. Whether his style as impact sub works against the Aussies may well depend on how much the pack can take out of their pack in the opening 50 minutes or so. Big, heavy forwards get caught out by Burrow's play when they tire. It's one of the few novel weapons we have, and the tried and tested approaches have been, well, tried and tested and they've failed.

My big issue with Tomkins at half is that he's our biggest attacking weapon. And I tink he's at his most effective when he can join the attacking line at slightly unpredictable times. As a first or 2nd receiver, he's less of a threat. It's a shame for Zak Hardaker, who I think is developing into a terrific runner of the ball and is proabably better defensively than Tomkins. But that's the way I'd go.

Also, with some of the risks I'd be taking elsewhere, there needs to be some balancing steadying influence, for which reason I'd like to have both Sinfield and O'Loughlin on the pitch, which ties up the 6 and 13 positions.

I fear that Cronk & Thurston will have a field day against the Chase/Sinfield combo.
Sinfield's lack of pace could be a real embarrassment.

When was the last time any Australian pack was tired out by the England/GB pack after about 50 minutes or so? Isn't it usually the other way around? Do you really believe Burrow is a novel weapon to Australia?

I can't remember it happening. But if we're going to have an international game we've got to at least try to win the matches. Every game plan we've had in a match that counts against the Aussies in my years watching RL has failed. I don't think that means we should stop having game plans.

Yes, Burrow offers certain physical attributes that make him difficult to stop given the right kind of possession. Not unique, but still fairly novel. And certainly different to just picking a 2nd hooker that's basically "Roby Lite" in my opinion.

Further exacerbated by the obvious decline in Sinfield's own playing standards this season. He really should have retired from international RL in 2008 when he thought about it. Unfortunately, one of his biggest fans is the current England coach who believes he will have the same influence at international level as he has done at SL level for Leeds when handed the captaincy and complete control.

We shall see over the next couple of months.

I think we stand a better chance of that this time due to the number of Aussie based players we have at our disposal in the pack.
4 of the forwards fall into this category, 2 of whom are proven at international level backed up by the other 2 who play for one of the top 4 NRL sides & who are regulars in their pack particularly used as impact props. That is an area we've lacked in the past.
But our backs, talented as they are, suffer in comparison to the physicality of both the 'roos & the kiwis.

The last time we beat Australia with a novel game plan was in Melbourne in 1992. Unfortunately, we don't have any players equipped with the ability, the skill or the vision of a Garry Schofield to pull it off.

A hugely lopsided penalty count in England's favour along with a pack of forwards that can hold their own for more than 60 minutes is their only hope of pulling off a shock result. Insistence upon Aussie players having to wear authentic ball and chain accoutrements may also be deemed helpful to the cause.

I'm all for a game plan involving taking risks... that's why I'd have Hock on from the start.

Centres have me worried more than anything. Australia will rip them apart.

For once I agree totally with you.
Subject to fitness, Inglis will be one & they could perm any one from half a dozen even discounting Jamie Lyon.
For my part I'd love to see Michael Jennings partner GI.

Given that we can't really pick the 1992 side, as I'm not sure many of them are match fit, we have to try to come up with a plan based on what we've got. Unless you think just throwing the towel in before the start is the best option? Doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

I'd have Hock on, either from the start or off the bench. Again, he can offer something that none of our other players can (on the field I mean, to head off predictable quips).

I think Cudjoe and Watkins are the best centres we have at our disposal. I think they're both very good players. On paper they're probably out-gunned by their Aussie counterparts (I'll have to take the words of those of you who watch the NRL on that I'm afraid) but that's not a variable the coach can control. They're the best options we have.

Possibly, but by no means guaranteed. James Graham wasn't as effective for the Bulldogs this season playing from the start. I'm loathe to advance the theory that our forwards can match theirs because it's been claimed ad nauseam for the past two decades and I've still to witness any evidence to support such claims.


The two impact Burgii are being looked after at their club. There are several unsung non-Burgii heroes who are doing the essential pack work which tends to go unnoticed. I do wonder which England forwards shall be looking after them in the same way apart from Sam Bro?


Agree completely, and also in terms of skill and vision.

No truer word has been spoken.

I'm think Lyon is retired from rep footy. He'd be a shoe-in otherwise. He's got better with age! I think it'll be Inglis and Jennings at centre. Wouldn't be surprised to see Taufua as one of the wingers.

Since the modern game relies increasingly on physical prowess rather than subtlety & skill I fear that until we have an off season that matches that down under we will fall further & further behind our antipodean rivals.
The current proposals for the game over here - on the basis of my current understanding of them - will serve to accelerate our inferiority.
We need fewer higher intensity games to enthuse spectators not more mediocrity.

We should try to bomb him to death if we ever get near enough to their 40 metre line to do this but our chase (not Chase) had better be good 7 in big enough numbers to stop him before he builds up a head of steam.
He's the new Marcus Bai but probably bigger, faster & with a better step!
The new improved Bai.

Don't think we should try the 'Burrow off the bench' option.
I'd maybe try (in the group games) bringing Hardaker on at FB and pushing Tomkins up the halves in the 2nd half just like Leeds did with Harris & St Hilaire in the late 90's.

Burrow shouldn't get in the 17 IMO. If we're playing two hookers they should be Roby and McIlorum.

If we're to spring a surprise and beat the Aussies it means England need the game of their lives. We need to be very disciplined and make very few errors. I'm not sure SL has been the right stage for preparing some of the England players for the step up needed to beat Australia. Playing Hock is fair enough but he's good for some penalties and mistakes that will ease the pressure on the opposition. It's a gamble.

England's defence outwide will let them down against australia. The forward pack can hold it's own, the backline is decent. But give australia 6 tackles in englands 30m zone and 7 times out of 10 they'll post points.

The last time I can recall england holding their own in defence against australia, in a game which wasn't a dead rubber for the aussies was the opening of the 2004 tri nations at the etihad, last min craig wing try.

If you think back over all the games against the aussies since then, the games we've done ok have been dead rubbers for the aussies, almost all the other games we've been exposed defensively.

I wouldn't have hock on at all. Too prone to brain farts. England literally can't afford any stupid offloads or penalties gifting the aussies position. People saying they need to ''give it a go'' that's the wrong way to play it IMO. If england try and open up in attack australia will smother it and shut it down. They'll pick out the runners and be up their s forcing errors. As soon as we start giving australia easy field position we are on a hiding to nothing. England need to go in with the mentality that australia aren't going to get any sets in our red zone throughout the entire game. Of course australia can score long range, no problem. But as soon as they get near our line it's like a sieve. That means we need to [irelentlessly[/iget up the field, put in decent kicks, chase well and give no penalties away. The least we can do is try and take it the distance. You stay within less than 6 points and you never know how the ball might bounce or if one of aussies [ihuman beings[/i (they aren't super human) cracks and comes up with an error.

A player like Hock is going to f*ck that up. He'll pull an offload out of nowhere taking us 30 metres further up the field. His next contributios will be to piggy back them up the field with a dumb penalty, which they most likely score from. Unfortunatly the good and bad don't cancel each other out because of how clinical australia are. Hocks good and bad combine to f*ck us over.

Try and stay with them. Keep it tight. Go the distance.


That's been the mantra since the early 90s and it's got us precisely nowhere. If we're going to lose I'd at least rather do it with a bit of a bang.

"On the day I day I'll say 'at least I f**king tried', that's the only eulogy I need."

Meh.

The main thing we need is to have fire from the first minute, show belief we can win and dont stand off them and show too much respect which is what we have done in recent times.We have Just tried to play it too safe and watch them to see what they have got, and by the time we find out exactly what they do have we are 20 points down and its game over.

Points people have made about our backs being inferior to theirs and us being exploited out wide are bang on but we do have more potential out there to bag points than in recent years if the game plan can be executed.Our pack again on paper looks more than a match but i too will reserve judgment on them until it starts proving it can mix it on the pitch.

I don't suppose it matters what ''mantra'' we have, whichever way you look at it, we lose. For the good of the world cup though, i'd like to try and keep it close, and i think if we go out to ''give it a go'', theres a bigger chance of getting shallacked then trying to play percentages and it will be yet another national embarassment to add to the now growing list. That's not to say we won't get thrashed trying to leep it tight, i'm just going on the balance of probability here. I mean, come on, we are not going to out attack australia. They have a plethora of plays that our players have probably never even seen. Hell, their playbooks are probably 20 years ahead of ours, we have paper cups and string they have apple iphones.

Arguably our best recent run of results against the aussies came under noble, who was an exponent of the keep it tight mantra. Who knows, if we'd had the backline then that we had now we may have done a bit better than we did.

Our pack on paper looks decent. But time and time again in the past against the aussies, we are dominated. They win the collision, their line speed is far ahead of anything we can consistently muster and our forwards look spent on 60 minutes whereas theres still look fresh.

Our best recent run of results against Australia? An achievement akin to winning the World's Tallest Dwarf award. Noble achieved what every other coach in the last 20 years achieved: nowt. Only with less style.

If we take the attitude that we'll lose anyway then we might as well not bother turning up. We should always try to win.

Lets also not forget that Australia do have probably one of the most settled and Outstanding spines of a team you will ever see and have had it for a number of years now.The combinations of Slater,Thurston,Cronk and Smith have dominated NSW for many years not just England.Chuck in the best that NSW has to offer to play around those players and we are always going to be up against it no matter who we have.