The most disappointing thing for me about this squad, is once again the lack of "unfashionable" selections. Essentially, the player selected come from only half of the teams in superleague. The lowest place team being Castleford in 9th.

Compare that to the Australian Squad which has been selected from 11 of their 16 teams, the lowest of which being Canberra who finished 15th!

We've got to stop looking at the same names, and the same teams, and actually start selecting players based on form, whether playing for an unfashionable club or not. It's time to start blooding some youngsters and stopping the tried, tested and failed players being selected year after year after year.

On paper, I think the knights are actually a better squad, and would give the seniors a damn good run for their money.

What I want to see from England this year is a few more ideas. I can rememebr times last year, especially in game one vs the Kiwis when England looked seriously like they couldn;t come up with ideas and even times where they broke the line and looked around cluelessely wondering what to do.

Hopefully setting a good halfs combination can combat that but as said above the idea that England has the best pack is a complete myth. They will be well tested this year, no Burgess, no OL, an aging Peacock and Morley.

It's hard to know what will happen with the 4N, no point in us complaining too much about selection until we've seen what they can do. Don't forget the Aussies and Kiwis are light a few players too so anything could happen. Hopefully the rest of the England squad remains healthy.

Have they met up as a squad yet?

I know Jamie Foster tweeted something about meeting up in Loughbrough and seeing what was going to happen. I think he's expecting Bailey to beat him up behind the bike sheds.

Agree with 1.

2. & 3. Are interrelated, we do have the better pack but they run off and are controlled by inadequate halfbacks which negates the dynamic advantages of our forwards.

The Ausies and to a lesser extent the Kiwis have almost exactly the opposite situation meaning their packs, whilst marginally less effective than Englands, are marshalled (excuse the pun) by excellent halfbacks and therefore are able to operate at a level which is greater than the sum of their parts.

Factor the poor kick returns and awful kicking game which results in our pack fighting to make hard yards inside our 30m, while conversely the opposition are enjoying a midfield/attacking position.

Now consider the energy battle which we lose because we're defending inside our half while Aus & NZ are under less stress defending further up the field.

All of the above is then exploited by both down under teams in the later stages of each half via their superior halfbacks ability to provide opportunities for their vastly superior three-quarter line.

Playing a Sinfield/McGuire/Chase combination at halfback will not resolve the above issues, IMO Brough would go a long way to providing an answer.

Give Chase and Widdopp a chance. McNamara may play Sinfield as a steadying hand, goalkicker and long-range kicker, but inherently we need our halfbacks to run the show.

As for our forwards, the problem is that what they do reasonably well is utterly basic - i.e. take the ball in and tackle when players run straight at them. What people vastly underestimate is the quality of work done off the ball by the Aussie forwards - dummy runs and helping make extra men in attack, and being very hardworking and mobile in defence (particularly on the inside) as required.

We tend to blame our backs when Australia score out wide or for looking 'clueless' in attack but some of the problem needs to be laid at the feet of our forwards as well. I remember Peacock blasting our backs after a loss in Australia, yet every time we tried to spread the ball our backs were lined up facing not just their opposite numbers but a couple of forwards as well. Not clueless but rather 'no chance'.

Are we going to have an Australian referee this time?

We were deservedly beaten last year but some of the refereeing was shockingly biased.