What do you mean, 'rough them up'?

England need to approach the games as a top super league side would the playoffs. Completed sets, good kicking game, no silly penalties. Forcing drop outs close to the line. They need to try and win the territorial battle as much as possible. They actually managed a game like this against the kiwis in the 2011 4 nations decider to get to the final, though i take the point it was a poor kiwi team. But had england not taken such a disciplined approach they would have lost the game, it was weight of field position and territory that slowly wore the kiwis down.

If england go out to ''attack...give it a go! let rangi and sinfield terrorise them!'' they'll end up with dumb rugby, mistakes, aussie field position and lots of aussie tries.

Still, explain what you mean by rough them up? Take a leaf out of ben westwood's book and play russian roulette with the officials? Ask harrison hansen for technique advice? How happy are you with that on a moral level?

If england want to get stuck into australia the best way they can do that is to engineer good territory and fire up in defence when australia are trying to work the ball away from the own line, remember leeds in the 2nd half of the 2008 WCC?

Any team is vulnerable to disciplined, hard hitting defence when they are trying to work the ball up from deep in their own half.

That is pretty much what I'm talking about. Being aggressive, does not mean transgressing the laws of the game.

If you look at the defeats they have suffered to the kiwis in the recent past, they have been disrupted by aggressive NZ defence, we need to replicate that enthusiasm.

So the best way to do that is by being disciplined, completing sets and trying to get australia coming off their own line, over and over again.

Recognise that England can't play the same tired old players year in and year out. Wigan showed the way against Warrington by playing a younger, fitter, more mobile team.

Thankfully Ellis has retired and Morley wasn't picked.
Hock is a liability

Sinfield, Burrow, Westwood, Ablett, Chase etc - these guys have been found wanting in the past. Experience is overrated, especially if it is losing experience.

The team has to be fit and mobile with a basic simple game plan - even then in all honesty, they only have a slight chance.

Ablett has not even played again Australia, where does o'loughlin fit in with this logic?

Notice Greg Eastwood is in the NZ squad.

I hope he'll be ok in this strange country for a few weeks.

He should be the first name on the teamsheet.

I know Wigan fans have an inflated opinion of this most ordinary of players (Sinfield without a kicking game), but picking him at full back is a leap even for them.

Carl Ablett has been a great player for Leeds, just not international class.

Sean O Loughlin is the best forward in Super League - so I guess you'd want him in your team - if fit.

What measurement have you used to determine he is not international class?

O'Loughlin wouldn't even be in the squad for me, nowhere near best forward in Super League. Just as failed in internationals as any other individual also.

I think you missed the word loose off there.

If failure against the aussies was a criteria for dropping players, I don't think we'd get a team out

That wasnt the point though, he has failed against Australia yet the rules dont apply.

How about this? He's a second row right?

Farrell/Hock/Westwood/Kirmond/JJB/Wilkin/Bateman/Ferres/Westerman - are all better. He gets in the squad because he can play centre better than all of the above.

O'Loughlin is the best player in the best team in Super League. Sorry I had to spell it out for you. (I didn't really want to do that as it could be miscontrued as disrespectful)