when our problem seems to be defending out wide, or at least getting the defence to slide a lot quicker/better. How would changing the loose forward to a big biff and barge player help?
if anything it'll slow the defence down even more and offer nothing more then an extra 2nd rower/prop in attack which we shouldn't need! (morley, peacock, ellis, burgess, crabtree, westwood, graham and co should be more then enough players to use as battering rams)

1 major thing that needs to be changed for mine, is someone needs to tell graham that he's a prop not a stand off. some of his passes at the line were shocking, not to mention that he wasn't even running at the line, then passing ie making defender move, and then passing into a gap. he was stood completely still for most of them, allowing the defence to bash the man receiving the ball (if he was lucky enough to have the pass actually go near him)

Dave Heron would be awesome today in a faster game, although in all likelihood he'd be a stand off - he was certainly quick enough.

A real problem that GB have had over the years is having loose forwards as key ball handlers. Unless you have a real crafty b*gger like a Harry Pinner, to be quite frank most loose forwards' handling is simply not sharp enough to break down a top defence. In addition, you generally lose a hardworking forward, and it seems to confuse rather than help the halfbacks. Australia and New Zealand don't have a loose forward with any ball handling responsibility - that's down to 6,7 and 9.

IMO Sinfield is unfortunate in that he's just not quick enough to be a stand off, and at international level is too lightweight for a loose forward. But he has a very good rugby brain, seems to have a calming effect on the players around him, and his passing game around the middle of the field is pretty good - as opposed to out wide where he just doesn't have the game to worry top threequarters IMO. That's why at international level I suspect he may be the best hooker we have. Roby is almost the opposite - his strength is his strength, as his distribution is poor. He and Sinfield swapping the roles they play for their clubs may work better for England.

Sinfield/Roby at Hooker and O'Loughlin at Loose could work well for England.

O'Loughlin no where near the team would work considerably better.

IMO he has played well for england in the past, who would your loose be?

If we had second row options I woulds put Ellis at LF but I don't think we can take him out of the SR.

The reason GB have been trying to find a ball-playing loose forward for the last 20 odd years is that they haven't had a decent ball-playing halfback in that same period. If they had a Lockyer/Thurston combination in the halves then you could use the likes of Ellis or Burgess as an extra ball carrier in the back row in the same way the Aussies have used Watmough, Johnson, Waterhouse etc in recent years.

Sadly the 13 - be it Farrell, Sculthorpe, Sinfield or O'Loughlin - is having to play as a third half back to cover the deficiencies at 6 and 7. Maybe a role there for Roby if England persist with the same structure?

Wouldn't be a bad idea if we had Hock or/and JJB for the second row.

I thought that last week was arguably Sinfield's best game in an international.

He should be a cert for the team this weekend.

In which role though Sam? Arguably his best contributions to the game were in the first 20 minutes of the second half when he switched into dummy half.

Do you start him in that role as GB did in 2004(?) or leave him at loose?

There is also a southern hemisphere tendency to find ball playing fullbacks who can act as another pivot player, whilst we look for defensively safe support players.

Both? Spell Roby there for a period then switch them or move Burgess or Westwood to loose forward.

I thought Sinfield's passing from DH was much slicker and more accurate than Roby's last week. Hopefully Roby can up his game a bit this week.

I also thought Sinfield was our most creative player from 13 in the first half (not saying much granted) and in his final stint at 6 was superb.

Why are people wanting wholesale changes across the team and changes not only to personnel but to positions. If these players are being asked to take on different roles how is there ever going to be any continuity. You would not see the Aussies put Lockyer at DH because they lost the 2nd half of a game?. How are any of our players going to be measured/tested and be able to improve their game if they are been asked to play against the best in unfamiliar positions.