He usually does against teams like Cas.

Widdop + Brough should be the halfbacks going forward, for the exiles games I'd go for Lomax/Gaskell + Brough.

I don't get the fuss about Chase though, so maybe I'm doing him a disservice not picking him.

You don't get the fuss about Chase but you think Lomax is good enough to play for England?

Lomax is vastly over rated, he isn't a half back at all (at this time he would be better suited to play full back), he isn't good enough of a passer or kicker to play at international level, let him establish himself at club level first.

Think Lomax is a decent player, not a world beater at all no, but decent with a lot of potential.

Judging by their selection year after year, you could argue that people like Morley and Peacock will be automatic choices no matter what their age! (not something I agree on though)

We should definitely be blooding Knights players though. People like Lee Mossop and Scott Taylor are the future of our front row.

Got there before me!

I like pointless threads where people extol the selection virtues of players who play for clubs they support whilst slagging off as useless the selection of players who play for their rivals. Not that any of it matters because - despite the usual hyperbole about England's chances in any tournament one cares to name - we all know they'll get hammered by Australia no matter which players are selected or who happens to be the coach.

Is there a limit to the number of exiles per SL club? I thought it was 2 only per club last year?

Dusgusting that we have provided 4 players to the England set up, we'll have to sign more Aussies to counter act this

Chase actually sang the National Anthem if you bothered to take the "Wakey criticise everything Cas" glasses off.

Further to this, his game was actually stifled by Sinfield who dominated everything. When Chase actually got his hands on the ball down the left, he put in some good assists. Playing with someone like Brough, who provides that kicking game, will bring the best out of Rangi.

England

1. Tomkins
2. Jones-Bishop
3. Watkins
4. Hardaker
5. Hall
6. Sinfield
7. Brough
8. Carvell
9. Roby
10. Peacock
11. Jones-Buchanan
12. Westwood
13. O'Loughlin

14. Burrow
15. Mossop
16. Crabtree
17. Hock

Exiles

1. Hodgson
2. Monaghan, J
3. Millard
4. Carmont
5. Richards
6. Hohaia
7. Leuluai, T
8. O'Meley
9. Monaghan, M
10. Puletua
11. Menzies
12. Delaney
13. Fitzgibbon

14. Kaufusi
15. Manu
16. Leuluai, K
17. Waterhouse

Not sure how anyone can say this squad looks too old when the average age is about 25! It looks a good blend of youth and experience. Not to mention the likes of Widdop, Reed, Graham and Burgess would no doubt have been in.

Neither does playing Loose Forrwards in every pivot position, which has also been proven numerous times.

I wouldn't argue with playing Sinfield at 13 for England though, if, if he's allowed to be a play maker as at Leeds - if they're asking him to spend more time driving it in, with the occasional offload, then O'Loughlin is a far more suitable choice for that role.

Mossop should be a in front of Peakcock and Morley he has been imense so far thus season and most of last season.

The debate about Chase and Sinfield?? I wonder would this be going on if Brough wasn't injured last year? I think that Sinfield is a very good player at Leeds same with Maguire I also think that if they were at a lesser team no offence but say Wakey or London they wouldn't be the same players and be found wanting. I also think that Sinfield is a very good rugby player but not one who excels in any particular position.

I also think that the England team should be GB, this way if someone like Henderson, Brough, Mickey Mc play for Ireland, Scotland Wales they can move onto the GB team. And the Knights team be called England. So in essence use the home nations as a stepping stone to get in the National team. Saves all this debate.

I'm not sure Sydney Roosters would let him off from a weeks coaching to let him play in this game. I think we have players in SL who could do a job instead of bringing in coaches from 12k miles away to play for the exiles.

I still can't understand why people think that playing O'Loughlin at 13 means you lose a playmaker. That's exactly what O'Loughlin does at Wigan, he just does everything else you expect of a loose forward too. What's the point in having a playmaker at 13 who isn't effective when going direct when you can have a playmaker who is good at playing more direct at the same time?

Brough and Burrow in for Lomax and Sinfield and you could be on to something.

Maguire's selection of Deacon for Wigan suggests otherwise.

My selection wasn't far off that.



Looking at the options we have coming through i definitely think were progressing.

If we're relying on playing a 6 at 13 in Sinfield, England are screwed. The only reason you would consider Sinfield at 13 (imo) is for a kicking game, but as I've said, if we can't get that from either of our HB's, we don't have a chance of winning anything anyway.

What does playing Deacon at 7 have to do with O'Loughlin being a playmaker from 13?

Deacon was effectively brought in to do the same job that Sinfield does for Leeds (from stand-off). The fact that Wigan were so desperate for someone to fill this role with O'Loughlin in the team (not to mention Finch, Tomkins and Leuluai) suggests that O'Loughlin isn't quite the playmaker some Wigan fans would like us to believe.

This isn't to say I think England need a playmaker at 13 or that Sinfield should play over O'Loughlin, or at all, FWIW.

nothing much in my opinion but it suggests that SOL doesnt have a kicking game, after all you wouldnt put Deacon in your side as a support runner or playmaker. Whatever is said about SOL he is not as good of a playmaker as Sinfield. Thats why Sinny gets the nod for me at 13.

As I have said before there is no point matching Australia tactically, they will batter us. We have to beat them tactically if we are too beat them at all.

Deacon was brought in because Wigan needed another halfback. It's not exactly rocket science. Deacon was effectively a replacement for Tim Smith. I don't see why needing a halfback has any relevance to O'Loughlin.

Besides, if you'd watched Wigan play and understood the way that Maguire structured the team you'd know that in 2010 O'Loughlin and Deacon were the main playmakers while in 2011 it was O'Loughlin and Finch. In 2011 Deacon's role within the side was very simple; pretty much pass a bit and kick a bit but he wasn't really a playmaker. He was in there for consistency but Maguire continued to pick him when he should have been dropped.

Plus, Maguire and Wane have both been confident in using O'Loughlin in the halves. If he wasn't a good playmaker he wouldn't be playing there but actually in the early part of 2010 his creative input at stand off was vital.

Deacon was only in the team for his kicking game. The only thing that lockers doesnt have as a playmaker is a kicking game which should come from one of the halves anyway imo. Everything else a playmaker does Lockers can do and i have seen him do. Add to the fact he is an immense defender and thats why Wigan fans and many people rate him so highly.