I agree with this side, but as with most previous England teams we are desperately seeking a decent half combination with bang average players in contention. Brown will still look good against PNG, but will go missing against a better side in the round after.

Thought Taylor did okay today, still think he's better than Hill currently, Burgess was far too loose with ball in hand yet again and was at fault for their try.

Losing Hardaker is really biting us because having Widdop at 6 is better than having him at FB and Brown did okay but then you should expect to against that level of opposition, Gale wasn't outstanding but did okay, Whitehead hasn't impressed either so not sure he deserves a place oveer McMeeken.

Lomax
McGillvary
Watkins
Percival
Hall
Widdop
Gale
Walmesly
Roby
Graham
S.Burgess
Currie
O'Loughlin

Hodgson
T.Burgess
Taylor
McMeeken

100% he will

Anyone with eyes can see Roby is playing far far better then Hodgson but I'm sure he'll go with Hodgson starting at hooker. I also think he'll put Lomax back in at fullback with Widdop in the halves.

It'll be the team against Oz with the only couple of difference potentially being Walmsley instead of Heighington and maybe Brown for Gale.

That's what worries me a bit. Bennet is 67 years old. Grumpy old men aren't known for their ability to change their minds rapidly. In his mind, players playing in the NRL are better than players playing in SL, and I doubt the evidence of his own eyes over the last three games is sufficient to seriously challenge that prejudice.

I suspect not even Bateman agrees with Bennett that Bateman is our second-best centre, and I think you'd have to be remarkably NRL-blinkered to see Hodgson as contributing more to the team than Roby. But I also suspect that both Bateman and Hodgson will start all the rest of the games, no matter what they do from here on in.

Agree 100%. Possibly that was part of the problem today. Players who know that no matter what they do, or how well they played. All they were playing for was a possible bench place. It must be hard to keep motivated for the whole of the game.

I have always said, my biggest problem with Bennett is that because he coaches and club side, he can't go to enough games to see how players perform. As TV only really focuses on the ball.
But his stubbornness is an issue that we don't need.

Just like in 2008 under Tony Smith when there was a Leeds- Saints split in the camp that affected things I've been concerned that they might be a SL-NRL split in this squad under Bennett and if fans at home can sense that NRL players will be picked regardless then how that must be obvious to the players and how can that possibly be a good thing?

I'd keep Whitehead in the team. His workrate in defence has been great so far in the two games he's played. Might not have impressed with the ball in hand in the Aus/Lebanon games but very few players did.

gale yet to stamp his authority on a game, disappointing.

brown fails on his kicking game but always been a top playmaker otherwise.

would have taken having to beat png and tonga to reach the final at the start of the comp...cant wait for the final!!!!! huge chance now, hopefully found out best combos by then... though i think bennett already knows his team, just gave others a run out today that hadnt played to keep them on his good side

Imo our best spine is
1.widdop
6.Brown
7.Gale
9.roby

Having bateman at left centre could be one of our undoings if we make the final. He should be in the engine room, he doesn't have the blockbusting power to barge over, the pace, or the handling. It means that when we create those openings and half chances on the fringes, which we will, they won't be converted. To win the WC they need to be.

If Bennett selected players for the sake of nrl he wouldn't have dropped the other Burgess. Could it possibly be these players are selected because, you know, they warrant selection? Being that they hold down places in a tougher higher quality competition.

I think we have a fantastic chance here, if we can make the final, I think we've got that perfect performance in us, maybe we'll get abit of luck this time.

Maybe he does pick the players who merit it (though I diagree). But the problem is he keeps picking them wether there performances deserve it or not. Bateman in the centres is an example, what's Shenton thinking when he sees that.

You're right we have a great chance to get to the final. And as I've said before it'show the results that matter. But it could be said if we don't make the final own, then it's as bad a tournamentas last year's 4 nations.

Agree with the vast majority of the team but also why it wont probably be the one Bennett picks. Personally in the PNG game I'd play Roby for the 80 and even maybe not bother with a back on the bench, as a just in case and go with Whitehead, Burgess, Walmsley and Bateman. If a back gets injured we'd just have to make do.

Davies and Wilkins 17 were strange imo, with just one Prop interchange and Lomax and Hodgson on the bench. I think they went with Currie at as well, with Sam moving into Prop when the 2nd row came on or something.

Who did well for France?

I thought Benjamin Garcia, Lucas Albert and Jason Baitieri were good.
Bastien Ader was good in defence, as was Theodore Fages.
Little John Boudebza was not bad, Fouad Yaha did well bringing the ball back, Romain Navarette provided some glimpses in attack and Benjamin Jullien tried hard in defence.
Big Julien Bousquet had a shocker with three dropped balls and no penetration in attack.
Pity that Thibault Margalet got injured because he is a good back rower with potential.

Awarding points 3,2,1 based on French performances I would go:

3. Garcia
2. Albert
1. Baitieri

If France had its six missing injured star players (Morgan Escare, Anthony Gigot, Remi Casty, Mickael Simon, Gadwin Springer, and Eloi Pelissier) the score line would have been much different.

Bless.....

We looked very fluid and fluent in attack in the first half and awful in the second. Partly that was down to moving players around, but also attitude. Laurie Daley was spot on after the game IMO, saying we need to start turning in 80 minute performances now as we definitely will have to against Tonga and whoever we may meet in the final (assuming we beat them which is far from a given).

After the France game, I'd say Percival should be given a chance. He's at least a proper centre, and more likely to keep plays going than Bateman, who IMO has defensive issues on the line as well, due to not actually being a centre.

I thought Brown looked more confident than Gale ball in hand, but not fussed if Gale is picked ahead of him. Sadly Williams looked absolutely clueless, made at least one really poor kick and just generally not good enough.

We should definitely beat PNG, particularly if we get an early lead. The best team they have played so far is Ireland, who they barely beat, but England would be confident of putting 50 past. Tonga is another story...

I thought it was Gale’s best performance by a distance. I put that down to Widdop being immediately on his left rather than the plodding Bateman. When 3 commentators are critical of an English international player you know there are issues. Percival looked every inch an international, which pleasantly surprised me. Him & Watkins must start. Williams looked lost, which I put down to being regularly coached by an ape, rather than anyone resembling a half back. Brown was a revelation; though I have been a long term fan I thought his inclusion on the trip was a mistake. Widdop is developing into the class pivotal leader we need, some of his touches were sublime. Lomax & Ratchford do not have that quality, so I would go Gale, Brown, Widdop 7,6,1. Currie has slightly disappointed me, McMeekan looks like a big bloke who only took up the game 3 years ago & lacks the nous at this level, he will get exposed.

I agree that Percival is streets ahead of Bateman in centre play, and the continued inclusion of Bateman there is for me the greatest mystery of the world cup. I too was pleasantly surprised by Brown, who I thought shouldn't have been on the plane. I'd like to see him get another gig against PNG, who will be harder than France. If he can free up Widdop with that sort of space again, then I'd keep him in. I'm not convinced Lomax is either fast enough or big enough to play internationally, and felt much more comfortable with Widdop at the back instead.

I agree that Currie didn't rip up any trees. He's had a torrid time, and this tournament may have been a dozen games too early for him after his recovery. McMeekan was just disappointing. Against the much smaller men of France, he wasn't able to either make any penetration or get any offloads away like he does at Cas. One for the future, but not now.

Agreed. I think we looked far more threatening and far slicker with Widdop at fullback, Brown and Gale at halfback and Roby at hooker. Also thought Percival should be straight in at No 4 for the PNG game with Watkins coming back in a 3. Bateman offers nothing in the centres and is a completely negative selection there.

Roby can play 80 mins and should. Hodgson should be binned off as he's been quite poor barring one assist versus Lebanon. I'd start Walmsley too as he'd give us valuable size and go forward from the off versus PNG who will come out on fire and he will take some gas out of them - more than Hill anyway.

Widdop
McGilvary
Watkins
Percival
Hall
Brown
Gale
Walmsley
Roby
Graham
Whitehead
O'Loughlin
S Burgess

Currie
Hill
T,Burgess
Bateman

Currie and Bateman can cover backs if we get an injury with Flanders or Widdop able to cover the halves if necessary. That 17 is picked with a 80min performance in mind. I'd be wanting some intensity from the backrowers in defence so could rotate them like the props.

Aye, summat like that. I forgot to mention Roby, who is on a different planet to Hodgson.

I'm looking forward to seeing Walmsley play against the better teams but happy to keep bringing him on off the bench for impact after around 20 mins.

I'm unconvinced by our back row, with Heighington offering little, Bateman and Currie both looking a bit lightweight, and McMeeken getting smashed all over the place against France. Could it be worth using Hill there off the bench to add some size? He's played loose for England quite a bit. I'd go:

1. Widdop
2. McGillvary
3. Watkins
4. Percival
5. Hall
6. Brown
7. Gale
8. Graham
9. Roby
10. Walmsley
11. S.Burgess
12. Whitehead
13. O'Loughlin

14. T.Burgess
15. Hill
16. Hodgson
17. Taylor

It's definitely a way we could go if we want the biggest pack with the most go forward. Tbh though I've not really thought about going this way before you mentioned it, but I'd be very tempted. Trouble is I'm not sure Bennettt will go this way. Against teams like Tonga and Aus, I think having the biggest pack we can, who won't get dominated and smashed around would defo be beneficial.
The only problem I can see in not having say at least Currie on the bench, is if a back gets injured and we have to move a couple of players around, depending on who got injured. I'd also be tempted to play Roby for the full 80 and leave Hodgson out and maybe stick Currie/bateman on the bench and you can still have 3 Props there.

england 2/1 to finish runners up with paddy power.... have abit of that!

I find the criticism of Currie a bit strange, to be honest. I think he's been good, easily our best back rower so far.

I don't think we've gotten enough out of the 2nd rowers all tournament with ball in hand so far.

Definitely. When you look at other teams in the WC their 2nd rowers have been destructive; Wade Graham, Murdoch-Masila, Tapine, Papali, Ma’u. Whitehead has been solid (mainly defensively), Currie has been ok. We need Burgess back but also some plays that put our 2nd rowers up against smaller opposition players.