Isn't that pretty much how they did it back in the day? I remember a selection "committe" for the GB team that faced Australia in '82. After the first test only the Jeffasuarus and Des Drummond played the second test. Now that's a selection policy that would not be out of place on the VT.

On a related note is the gap now as wide as it was in 1982?

didn't the old touring parties have someone from each club?

some strange blackpool representatives in the 80s mentioned in ian hadfields book i'm sure.

And no i don't think it's as wide as 82 , the invincibles were the best i've ever seen.

was it comparable to when wigan were 100% pro & everyone else was part time though?

Indeed - I realise criticising JPs performances on here are akin to slitting the throat of a sacred cow though, so I did half expect a knee jerk from someone in response.

knee jerk or not, I was mainly questioning whether you think that Peacock offers less to GB than Carvell. I guess I know your answer.

]

Roby at loose forward???? That must be a joke.

There's only one way to find out.

I wasn't entirely convinced before Saturday that Crabtree would offer more to England than Peacock, but I got an answer.

JP needs to play at prop - I suspect his selection at SR was a contributing factor to Englands defensive woes last week.

However, do you really believe England would be better off with Carvell?

I also think Eastmond at half with another inexperienced halfback would be a huge gamble when he's not managed to have any sort of a run at club level in the halves.

Ive rated Crabtree as being capable to perform on the bigger stage. he has good strength, mobility, and is able to get the ball away in the tackle.

I'm never that convinced by Carvell.

Who looked the more dangerous of the two halfbacks on Saturday?

England need to be prepared to take chances, otherwise they'll just end up picking the same old tried - and failed - faces.

In the absence of Burrow, Eastmond offers the best option IMO to cause the big Kiwi forwards problems with his footwork and acceleration. I reckon he's well on the way to becoming the halfback that Jason Robinson could have been had other aspects of his game not let him down.

Aye a pity about those weaknesses, what a player that Robinson could have been.

I don't think it's the same, no. We not were able to dominate any of the games I remember for any period of time. We only scored one try in three matches. Even Sheens admitted that at the end of the game on Saturday they were exhausted - they didn't break sweat in '82. Having said that I remember GB being able to hold Australia in check until the second half most games in '82, but wether that was due to the conditions of playing in English mud in November, the inclusion of "biff" for long periods, or the fact we had better players? I don't know.

We did have a larger pool of players to choose from because of the international ban, but we had completely lost contact with the sport in Australia - no coaches, no players over here and no idea of how they had progressed (although I believe in '79 the warning bells were ringing loud and clear).

I was looking at the GB teams for those three games and we played 3 completely different sets of half backs, Nash and Woods, Holmes and Ken Kelly, Topliss and Gregory. Three different 9's, three different 13's, 5 different second row forwards. The pack for the third test was completly different to a man from the one in the second test.

We are - by and large - more competitive at home than we were in 1982. Wasn't it 2003 when all three Tests went down to the last five minutes with just one score between the sides?

Perhaps some of this is because of the curtailing of full tours, meaning visiting Australian sides aren't getting the chance to bed in and build up match sharpness/combinations as they would on a long tour with club games leading up to the Tests.

Conversely, that end to proper tours has made GB/England much less competitive away from home as was evidenced by performances on Australian soil over the last 10 years when compared to tours in the late 80s and 90s.

In 1982 and 1986 GB didn't look like winning any of the Tests. At least now there is the belief that with the right performance the Australians are eminently beatable on their travels.

We were in a mess back then weren't we.

I was going to make that point (or something similar) with regards to the '82 series as my over-riding memory from a British point of view.

Strength (weakness) in depth. The selection committee actually had several options back then because of the overseas ban.