Hock didn't do himself any favours in this tournement IMO. He was good against Wales but then for no reason at all started a bit of handbags for no reason what so ever. He's pretty gash for the rest of the tournement after that. He's 29 now so I doubt at this stage of his career he'll change his ways. He's one of the best attacking backrowers we have but it'll be a gamble to select him, I would but I'd start him on the bench.

To go off topic slightly, I also think Mossop hasn't done himself any favours in this tournement, I think if everyones fit I'd select Crabtree before him.

Fair calls. Though I think at the moment Hock would still be worth a bench spot, but maybe limit the time he has on the field - Ellis, O'Loughlin and Westwood are capable of pulling big stints even against Aus, and with the machine that is Graham maybe Burgess could be spelled in the back row.

8. Graham
9. Roby
10. Burgess
11. Westwood
12. Ellis
13. O'Loughlin

14. Hill/Mossop (in case Hill has 2nd season syndrome)
15. Crabtree/Mossop
16. Hock
17. Burrow

looks the likely pack (next season and injuries permitting of course).

No mention of NRL Regular Luke Burgess? Although he didn't get selected. I would rather have him on the bench over Hill/Mossop .

Crabtree, Hill and Mossop would easily be NRL regulars too. Imo those 3 still edge Luke, but you're right he should be in the squad and a potential bench spot.

Maybe I have missed something but I thought he was pretty poor this tournament, especially in the French games. He needs to learn when to stick or twist with ball in hand, it looks good when it comes off but he's made stacks of errors in the last 3 weeks and slack play like that will be punished against better opposition. How he got MOM in the first French game is beyond me, short of the BBC nominating him to ask him about the NRL.

He has to come off the bench if selected in the World Cup.

Any NRL forward which experience the level of intensity week in week out has to be on the bench over the aforementioned.

Luke proved the doubters and quite possibly himself that he could handle the NRL and improved tenfold. So why is he constantly over looked?

Because (whisper it quietly) playing in the NRL maybe isn't is hard as people will lead you to believe. L Burgess is not in our top 5 props.

I disagree, from the games I’ve witnessed; the intensity over 80mins of any forward pack is above anything ESL can offer.
Therefore, any English forward, who can hold is spot on a regular basis, deserves his spot on the International stage, over likes of Mossop & Hill.

Fortunately over the next few years, the English forward pack has strength and depth coming through, a nice headache to have for any decent coach.

Nice name Chaka........

And you are?

What measure are you using to state that Luke Burgess has improved tenfold? Could you explain exactly how Burgess has improved his game rather than just stating he is a better player because he plays in a better competition

He was renown for planting his feet when tackling & suspect of loose carries. In my opinion he has improved his game become more mobile and to do that in more intense game has only got to be good of the England squad.

I'm Mooka[ichaka[/i!

Burgess had already improved imensely the season before he left Leeds, he was Leeds' best forward by a mile in the first half of 2010, he gives good go forward and has a better offload game than Mossop. I was convinced he would do well in the NRL, and he has. I also think he was in better form than the likes of Crabtree, and Mossop at the back end of the year, and deserved a run out for England. As I said earlier I remain unconvinced by Mossop, he's big and agressive but his form has been poor the last few months and if he doesn't improve he'll be lucky to get in the 17.

Crabtree had probably the best year of his career in 2012, was consistently carrying the Giants week in week out. His form couldn't really have been much better, end of the year included. Hull fans were nominating him for MoM when they hammered Hudds in the playoffs.