What is everyone thinking about starting hooker? I would prefer to see MM from the start and bring Roby on a little later. I really don't think Burrow's style will cause the Australians any problems, so would hope for a bench of forwards. And where would Sam Tomkins be best played? I'm arguing with myself that he would be better in the halves with Zak at the back.

I think Roby's a class above any other hooker in this country when he's fit. His sharpness is where the gamble comes. I'd risk it.

Then we're back into calculated gamble territory. I have no doubt in my mind that McIlorum is a better hooker than Rob Burrow. But I'd still put Burrow on the bench. Whether his style as impact sub works against the Aussies may well depend on how much the pack can take out of their pack in the opening 50 minutes or so. Big, heavy forwards get caught out by Burrow's play when they tire. It's one of the few novel weapons we have, and the tried and tested approaches have been, well, tried and tested and they've failed.

My big issue with Tomkins at half is that he's our biggest attacking weapon. And I tink he's at his most effective when he can join the attacking line at slightly unpredictable times. As a first or 2nd receiver, he's less of a threat. It's a shame for Zak Hardaker, who I think is developing into a terrific runner of the ball and is proabably better defensively than Tomkins. But that's the way I'd go.

Also, with some of the risks I'd be taking elsewhere, there needs to be some balancing steadying influence, for which reason I'd like to have both Sinfield and O'Loughlin on the pitch, which ties up the 6 and 13 positions.

I fear that Cronk & Thurston will have a field day against the Chase/Sinfield combo.
Sinfield's lack of pace could be a real embarrassment.

When was the last time any Australian pack was tired out by the England/GB pack after about 50 minutes or so? Isn't it usually the other way around? Do you really believe Burrow is a novel weapon to Australia?

I can't remember it happening. But if we're going to have an international game we've got to at least try to win the matches. Every game plan we've had in a match that counts against the Aussies in my years watching RL has failed. I don't think that means we should stop having game plans.

Yes, Burrow offers certain physical attributes that make him difficult to stop given the right kind of possession. Not unique, but still fairly novel. And certainly different to just picking a 2nd hooker that's basically "Roby Lite" in my opinion.

Further exacerbated by the obvious decline in Sinfield's own playing standards this season. He really should have retired from international RL in 2008 when he thought about it. Unfortunately, one of his biggest fans is the current England coach who believes he will have the same influence at international level as he has done at SL level for Leeds when handed the captaincy and complete control.

We shall see over the next couple of months.

I think we stand a better chance of that this time due to the number of Aussie based players we have at our disposal in the pack.
4 of the forwards fall into this category, 2 of whom are proven at international level backed up by the other 2 who play for one of the top 4 NRL sides & who are regulars in their pack particularly used as impact props. That is an area we've lacked in the past.
But our backs, talented as they are, suffer in comparison to the physicality of both the 'roos & the kiwis.

The last time we beat Australia with a novel game plan was in Melbourne in 1992. Unfortunately, we don't have any players equipped with the ability, the skill or the vision of a Garry Schofield to pull it off.

A hugely lopsided penalty count in England's favour along with a pack of forwards that can hold their own for more than 60 minutes is their only hope of pulling off a shock result. Insistence upon Aussie players having to wear authentic ball and chain accoutrements may also be deemed helpful to the cause.

I'm all for a game plan involving taking risks... that's why I'd have Hock on from the start.

Centres have me worried more than anything. Australia will rip them apart.

For once I agree totally with you.
Subject to fitness, Inglis will be one & they could perm any one from half a dozen even discounting Jamie Lyon.
For my part I'd love to see Michael Jennings partner GI.

Given that we can't really pick the 1992 side, as I'm not sure many of them are match fit, we have to try to come up with a plan based on what we've got. Unless you think just throwing the towel in before the start is the best option? Doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.

I'd have Hock on, either from the start or off the bench. Again, he can offer something that none of our other players can (on the field I mean, to head off predictable quips).

I think Cudjoe and Watkins are the best centres we have at our disposal. I think they're both very good players. On paper they're probably out-gunned by their Aussie counterparts (I'll have to take the words of those of you who watch the NRL on that I'm afraid) but that's not a variable the coach can control. They're the best options we have.

Possibly, but by no means guaranteed. James Graham wasn't as effective for the Bulldogs this season playing from the start. I'm loathe to advance the theory that our forwards can match theirs because it's been claimed ad nauseam for the past two decades and I've still to witness any evidence to support such claims.


The two impact Burgii are being looked after at their club. There are several unsung non-Burgii heroes who are doing the essential pack work which tends to go unnoticed. I do wonder which England forwards shall be looking after them in the same way apart from Sam Bro?


Agree completely, and also in terms of skill and vision.