Quote ="NickyKiss"That was the change for me and in no way shape or form because Knowles plays for Saints. You just don't need 2 loose forwards in your 17. The Aussies aren't playing Yeo and then carrying a second 13 on the bench and that goes for sides across the world and in both major leagues. I wouldn't have had an issue even if Wane decided to play Knowles as a prop from the bench and then leave out McMeekan, Burgess, Lees or Havard but to split that 13 role seems pointless.
Thompson and Nsemba both should be involved on Saturday and that is not Wigan bias, that is because they are comfortably in our best 17 players, with one our best prop and one undoubtedly one of our best 3 second rowers (and to me the best balance of a bench is always 2 props, a second rower and a utility or second hooker).'"
Agree. Nothing to do with club bias as you say. I want England to compete and ideally beat the Aussies and I don't think we can pretend to carry two 13s against them and not suffer. I know where you're coming from regarding Knowles as a prop rather than spelling Radley but I don't even agree with that option as Lees and Knowles are too similar at prop. There are better options such as Robbie Mulhearn for the extra prop role and he offers something different. One of Lees or Knowles (probably Lees) and one of Radley or Knowles (definitely Radley). Hard on Knowles maybe, as he hasn't let us down, but that's the harsh reality, or should be, at international level.
For me, it's the one area of weakness in Wane's 'loyalty first' approach. As Stu says, Radley is genuine world class. Play him for the full 80. If he's not available Knowles is the next cab off the rank. In the meantime get another potential world class player in Nsemba on the field. That can only benefit England going forward. Can you imagine if his first international outing turns out to be in the probable Ashes series next year because of a decision to play an extra 13 when we didn't need to?