What a tart!!!

Small time utility player will get bored never seeing theball in union and come back when he's made his fortune, then realise he was never goodenough anyway.

Greg Inglis proved it, good riddance, never play him again.

Enjoy your big payout showpony.

He's a fullback. If he'd concentrated on that role he'd be a far better one than onybody else England could pick. He's not really a winger, and he's definitely not a centre. The mere fact that he got picked there says it all about who else is available.

He was awful and should have never been picked in the first place. He certainly shouldnt be picked in the next match.

If England left out every player who was likely to get embarrassed by Greg Inglis they wouldn't have anyone left on the pitch.

What rubbish. He is a player that was embarrassed by Inglis, so there is no likely about it in his case. In the 2nd half when he was moved from the centre England looked much more solid down the right side. Indeed Inglis did nothing as the defence was much better. Even in the 1st half it wasnt as if Inglis was running straight through him, half decent positional play would have stopped the tries where Smith was at fault.

He is simply not international standard and was chosen for the world cup last year on the back of a good display in the grand final when for parts of that season he couldnt even make the Leeds starting 13. This year he has done okay, but nothing special, in the best team in the league. It is hardly like we are talking about a superstar who just had a bad day. In addition he has chosen to go to Union so isnt even worth persevering with for the future. Get rid and give someone that wants to play Rugby League, and who will be around for England selection in the coming years, the chance.

Like Chris "Irish when it suits" Bridge or Paul "What position am I playing" Sykes?

If you think either of them would have done better on Saturday you're only fooling yourself.

England's problem in that first half wasn't personnel, it was defensive structure. Every time Australia moved the ball right the whole defensive line compressed over to that side of the field. Couple of big long passes to their left and suddenly you've got two of the best players in the world (Inglis and Slater) operating in acres of space with a big overlap because the ball is being moved faster than the defence can slide.

Nail on head.

Spot on - can you let HKR fans know? Some of them seem to think it was all Tom Briscoe's fault.

Do you a deal Chris, I'll do that if you can let the Saints fans know it wasn't all down to Sinfield, Smith and McGuire.

But it was... Not just Saints fans think that mate. Briscoe was in no way at fault.

Never mind if he's deserved his place on merit or not throughout the season, he should not have been picked. If Tony Smith is building for the 2013 World Cup then why pick a player who's played his last game of club rugby league?

Isn't Tony Smith's job to win the 2009 Four Nations by picking what he considers his best available team?

Absolutely correct. Although it's up to those players left exposed (and the full back, who can see better than anyone) to tell any players who've been sucked in to get back in position and be aware of Slater slotting into their back line and creating the overlap.

Inglis has two main weapons. His outstanding sidestep - normally off his right foot, but either way is blindingly fast. He'll run at his opposite centre, pull him wide, and then slice inside. He's so big and fast that if he creates a few inches he's through, but it seemed to me that Eastmond's reactions were fast enough to cope and his size meant he went low and avoided Inglis's upper body strength. And then of course Inglis has that pace - give him any space and those long legs take him away from you, and in full flight he's almost impossible to stop. And of course he's a freakishly outstanding athlete.

The difference in the second half was that England spread their defensive line a little more, and the Australians weren't willing to be as adventurous as they were dealing with worse field position and trying to run a lot of escape sets. Hence the big shifts of the ball from right to left weren't being used as often.

Id play him at fullback against the Kiwis.

Smith
Briscoe
Ellis
Shenton
Hall.

I dont like Shaun Briscoe at full back.

Leeds played with two British centres all season.

One has retired (but is still probably the best) and the other was Lee Smith.

If other clubs didn't play antipodeans in their threequarters then Lee Smith might not have been selected.

I wouldn't argue with that.

He did nothing wrong on Saturday and was fairly solid.

Will they play with two British centres next season?

just for a bit of fun.

Pick 3 teams from your club

1) All British

2) All that have come through your academy

3) All local born(i.e for the Saints side all St.Helens born.)

All must be eligible for Superleague 2010

Thinking caps on.

British

1- Richards
2- Goulding
3- Gleeson
4- Pryce
5- Ainscough
6- O'Loughlin
7- Tomkins
8- Fielden
9- McIllorum
10- Prescott
11- Coley
12- Mossop
13- Tomkins

14- O'Carroll
15- Davies
16- Farrell
17- Mellor

Wigan Academy

1- Briscoe
2- Aspinwall
3- Wild
4- Brown
5- Ainscough
6- S.Tomkins
7- Sean Long
8- Prescott
9- McIllorum
10- O'Carroll
11- Gilmour
12- Wild
13- O'Loughlin

14- Hansen
15- Hargreaves
16- Bibey

He has 2 challenge cup winners medals you know!
17- Jones/Deacon/Robinson
17-

Wigan Lads

1- Briscoe
2- Aspinwall
3- Gleeson
4- Brown
5- Goulding
6- S.Tomkins
7- Long
8- Prescott
9- Newton
10- Wood
11- Tickle
12- Wild
13- O'Loughlin

14- J.Tomkins
15- Hargreaves
16- Clarke
17- Fitzpatrick

1. Mathers
2. Smith
3. Walker
4. Gibson
5. Hall
6. McGuire
7. Tansey
8. Burgess
9. McShane
10. Bailey
11. Jones-Buchanan
12. Ablett
13. Murrell

14. Jones-Bishop
15. Kaye
16. Scruton
17. Williams

All born and have played for Leeds in last 5 years and doesn't include players such as Burrow, Sinfield, Diskin, Calderwood, Ward, Watkins; If going for Leeds lads can add Peacock.

For next season:

1. Jones-Bishop
2. Broughton
3. Coady
4. Senior
5. Hall
6. McGuire
7. Burrow
8. Bailey
9. Diskin
10. Peacock
11. Jones-Buchanan
12. Ablett
13. Sinfield

14. Burgess
15. McShane
16. Watkins
17. Kirke
18. Amor
19. Pitts

Exactly. Not good enough at this level. Not that do have any fullbacks good enough for this level, mind.

Exactly. this is a lose-lose scenario. As it is he was a marginal selection. What is the benfit to English RL in playing him? If if someone else picked in this position played as poorly as he did (it would be difficult to play worse) then at least it would be a tough experience they could hopefully learn from. Or we move onto the next person on the list until the right one is found. With Smith - he's gone no matter what. And if Smith did play adequately he is still gone and a replacement will need finding. The only beneficiaries from a decent Smith performance would be the England RU who wouldn't miss the opportunity to cash in on the publicity. A truly inexplicable selection.

I love this line of argument.

If Tony Smith had picked an experimental side full of young kids who weren't the first choice selection and it had got stuffed by 60, he would have been crucified for selling out those who had paid good money to see a competitive game.

He picks what was arguably his best available side, it gets as close to Australia as any GB/England side in the last five years (with one exception) and all of a sudden he should have been building for the future rather than picking a side to win in the here and now.

If people want teams picked for development purposes, why is nobody questioning the selections of Morley and Peacock?

Why are people banging on about building for the bl00dy world cup, thats not what Internationals are about, we need to pick the best available team to win the tournament that we are playing in. Picking players who may or may not be good enough or available for a tournament thats taking place in 4 years time is pure lunacy.