I feel a sense of relief that Sykes and Brdige haven't been named in the team. A side from that it looks very poor, Myler is a dubious choice with no form or experience just cant figure that out and why is Eastmond on the bench?

How many of them would get near the NZ team let alone the Aus team? i'll say 5 would. Its a poor team and squad.

Is there any team in SL that puts a half back and a hooker (a relatively small one at that) on the bench at the same time?

Can't see what Eastmond would do when he came on? If he goes to acting half then I'll be baffled.

We all know that we are struggling for Backs at the moment, but the bench is a very unusual one, halfback and a hooker?

The selection of Westwood is strange as well (unless he is going to be spelled in the front row) as for a second rower we would have been much better served going for Gilmour, but TS didn't even take him in the 24 man squad???

This has all the hallmarks of a "I'll show them I had the selection right in the world cup" about it...

Either that or f#ck it i'm getting paid stacks by wire and i'll be gone by the end of the year!!!

I imagine it'll be Westwood to second row, Burgess to prop rather than having an out and out second prop on the bench. Graham and Peacock are both capable of sixty minutes if required allowing Morley and Burgess to fill in the remainder this week.

I hope the bench is bigger for the other two matches though.

The easy option then would surely have been to select Burrow?

I get the impression it could be a bit of reverse psychology in that "I'm going to drop all the players that everone else said underperformed, and pick some inexperienced youth in their place so no one can blame me".

The only area this strategy falls down on is the selection of Lee Smith, which is the right thing to do for this series, hardly screams "planning for the future"...

It's been the most bizarrely selected squad for many a year...

that's a bit childish by your usual standards.

As it is I disagree. I think you pick the best squad you can to win on merit. Smith is there on merit. By seasons end he was probably the second best English centre in the league after Senior.

Add in the utility value he offers and the lack of quality threequarters at Smith's disposal I think it was a no brainer once Smith made himself available.

Why is it?

Westwood has been an integral part of Smith's international teams since he took over. Its' hardly surprising.

I rate him. If he could cut out his penalties he'd be a very good player.

I too think its' strange to have a half back and hooker on the bench but i assume he won't be doing that against the Aussies or Kiwis.

Myler, it would appear, is the new golden child of Rugby league and form and performances are irrelevant.

One wonders why the likes of Bridge and Sykes are in the squad but not in the team to face France. Surely he's not saving them to unleash them upon the Kiwis or Aussies??

I agree with what yer saying G but don't you think it smacks of hypocrisy on TS's part?????
Afterall he's said his squad is selected with an eye on the future for GB/England yet L.Smith buggers off to union at the end of november!
Then again he says he's selected his squad on form yet leaves out Burrow,Tompkins and Senior yet picks Myler and Sykes

As you know I'm a great believer in International Rugby League and bringing kids through.

I would much rather we had played Hall or Lawrence. Smith is not going to be around in RL for the next few years. There would have been uproar on here if Andy Farrell or Jason Robinson had been picked for England RL after saying they were leaving to go to Rugby Union, and you know there would.

Oh and both those were much better players than Lee Smith.

It's the principle, that's wrong, and I'd have the same view regardless of club.