Sadly not imo. As Charlie says, He has been solid enough just not the game breaker we maybe hoped he may become on that stage as of yet at least.

Is this game on the BBC, Sky Sports or Premier Sports?

Can see Joe Burgess pushing for a shirt. Greg Eden possibly aswell.

Only position for me which is up in the air is Centre. We've just got no quality there. As a Wigan & International fan I'm hoping Gildart makes a full recovery from his injury as he was putting down a huge marker at the start of the season to be thought of for international honours.

Shenton? Gildart (if fit)? I'd prefer either of those to Sarginson, and Watkins is a flat track bully who looked good against our kids last week, but has shown nothing at international level.

Watkins has just under a try every other game at international level. 9 in 19.

I'd certainly be keeping Watkins in. Other centre is there for the taking; I'd personally like to see Percival get another crack.

Lot more potential occupants for wing spots over the next few years, Eden having a storming season, Joe Burgess, Manfredi was awesome last year before getting injured. Ethan Ryan at Bradford is showing a lot of promise, he could come into the reckoning years down the line when he inevitably moves to a SL club.

v Australia and New Zealand he has scored 2 tries in 9 games, hardly prolific when it counts.

We won 2 of those 9 games and scored over 20 points as a team once.

I'm not saying it's totally his fault, but you can't justify selecting him on the basis of him being a regular try scorer when he only really tends to score against inferior teams. There is only really Ryan Hall who gets in as a regular try scorer (10 from 12 v Australia/New Zealand) regardless of whether we win, lose or score many points, he almost always gets over the line at some point.

I'm really not trying to defend Watkins, he frustrates me as much as anybody, but imo he is still slightly ahead of any other centre we currently have. If he is playing well come October, which he is now to be fair, he should be in the team. The only other viable options we have in that position to play centre are Sarginson, Percivill and perhaps Shenton. Bottom line is, we just don't produce anywhere near the quality in that position that Australia and NZ can.

I'm biased, but I do think Ratchford's best position could be centre, alongside Pervical would be quite the nimble centres.

Watkins is one of the few centres we have who comes close to the Aussie or kiwi centres physically. All the talk of the likes of Gildart and Percival being better at this stage is madness. It'd be men against boys.

Watkins has often been up against Greg Inglis for Australia, one of the biggest and strongest outside backs our sport has ever produced. I shudder to imagine some of the names mentioned against him.

In fact Australia's pure physicality, particularly in the threequarters, is often overlooked. Whoever they pick the backs will be fast and strong. We need backs who at the very least can mix it physcially, which is why the likes of Hall, Watkins and McGillvary have to be there ahead of the likes of Eden (looked a complete wuss playing for the Broncos), even if they are in poorer form at club level.

Indeed. Many said last year's Australian back line was one of the weakest ever, but it was certainly the biggest I've seen. All of them are at least 6'3 and over 100kg. The thought of scrawny kids like Percival, Crooks, or Gildart defending against them is frightening. I've not seen anyone in the academy grades who looks like they could one day provide that physicality at the moment.

The game will apparently be available streamed on line for a fee and not live on the BBC who wanted to screen it which is about dumbest idea I have ever heard.

RL is completely locked in a mindset of squeezing a bit more out of the same people and doing nothing to attract new fans. Few existing fans are going to pay for this game, attendances are being propped up by subsidised away travel, SL is locked behind pay tv.

International RL is the easiest hook for a new fan. Whether they have seen a game or not they already have an affiliation. It should be spread as far and as wide as we can. FTA live broadcasts get us audiences of millions. It is our greatest possible marketing tool.

Ridiculous decision.

I'm sure there will be a free stream somewhere online and because us northerners are quite tight.

The RFL will then not make any money from this folly.

Do the BBC already have the rights to broadcast international friendly matches?
If not, were they willing to pay for the broadcasting rights?

Regardless they should have been given the rights, more international games is how we are going to grow the game. It won't grow the game however if there only seen by a few hundred die hard fans online. Incredibly short sighted decision to try and make a couple of grand out of this.

Not sure I agree. How are you supposed to enter into future negotiations for broadcasting rights etc. and try and paint your sport in the most positive light if you've been giving broadcasting rights away for free in the past?

If the BBC really did want it for free then I can see why the rfl might have said no / asked for a fee.

Complete joke! As if we are turning down free publicity just to squeeze a few £'s out of diehard fans! This game should have been on BBC and streamed live online via the iPlayer.

It would be far easier to go to the BBC and say, "we got C2m people watching the last game, you need to pay for this one" than " we got 5000 people paying a fiver last time, give us money"

There is nothing wrong with investigating streaming as an option but the infrastructure isnt there yet, the market isnt there yet, and the game isnt set up to have all that much to sell. The FA tried it with England v Ukraine in 2009 and it was a disaster.

If the RFL are looking at streaming long term the problems and hurdles are many. They will take on the risk because they will need to outlay the costs of broadcast, they will need to take on responsibility for marketing, nobody is going to stumble upon the game, casuals will be put off, advertising revenue would be less, the value proposition is lower. We are nowhere near ready for that switch (and actually can't do so for another 5 years anyway) which leaves this as nothing more than a short term money grab that will make a relatively miniscule amount and will cost the huge free advertising of a game live on the BBC

Actually getting them to pay for it is an entirely different matter altogether. As has been mentioned, if they were such a vanguard of publicity for RL why don't they have the rights already?

Have the RFL ever offered a rights package to freindly internationals to anyone? outside of the World Cup and 4Nations its never clear who or where England will be playing. Why would the BBC or any broadcaster be willing to commit money to such an erratic, disorganised schedule? In contrast I bet the BBC know in detail when and where England RU will be playing for the next couple of years and can bid for rights packages accordingly.

They do have rights to some internationals, including the world cup at the end of this year and in 2021. They dont have the rights to this game for the same reason sky dont. The game itself wasnt confirmed when they sold the last set of rights.