I dont think I was particularly biased, if I am its only because I have understandably watched more of Wigan than other sides this season.

Im not saying the Wigan players are leaps and bounds better than some of the others, Im just saying that some of them are better suited to some of the roles are mentioned.

For my two cents, I dont think Rangi Chase should be in the England squad, not just because he is ill tempered and ill disciplined, and also quite nasty in some ways, but more because I thought the point of GB becoming England Scotland etc was maybe to put some pride in the shirt the players wear.

Chase is not going to get that same feeling in an England shirt than someone like, for instance, Carvell, Tomkins and the like, and if the teams not got passion it isnt going to win.

And one other thing, Sinfield isnt a hooker, thats the end of it lol

The bottom line is nothing that you said suggested bias. You mentioned Mossop who many people think should be in the team, you mentioned McIlorum who has been one of the form hookers in the league, was included in the team last season when his form wasn't as good as it is now and he's playing better than Burrow (who isn't even good enough to defend in the position he plays) and Henderson who has actually been a little disappointing this year.
Then you mentioned Charnley, who is the form winger in Super League. They are hardly outrageous calls.

The thing you forgot is that saying anything that could be seen as negative about Leeds players, or not including them in your squad, is apparently obvious bias.

If he is to be included, he has played his best rugby for England at Hooker imo.

Burrow has been injured for the past few weeks so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Would you take Mcllorum over Burrow in your team if both were fit and on form?

I was aware Burrow hadn't played for a while so it puts him at a slight disadvantage, but I'm going off the whole of the season since he can't be judged on recent games.

At hooker I'd have McIlorum without a doubt. Macca isn't the exciting dynamic player that Burrow is but he's had a consistent influence on the Wigan team this year and has played well in all of Wigan's big games and been one of the most consistent players in the side. Burrow's a brilliant attacking player and one of the most dangerous in the league on form and McIlorum can't match that, but defensively McIlorum has been outstanding for Wigan and makes a massive difference to the team.

Defence is just as important as attack. I'd rather have McIlorum at hooker for 80 minutes than Burrow, whose defence isn't good enough and he'd have to be pushed out wide so that someone else could cover the defensive duties that a hooker usually does. McIlorum won't be scoring tries like Burrow did in the Grand Final, but Burrow won't be rushing up to put in a big tackle on rampaging prop forward like McIlorum. Different players, different strengths which will suit the needs of different teams in different ways.

I'm not saying McIlorum should definitely make the England side, I was pointing out that suggesting he's good enough to be included isn't bias, it's a perfectly reasonable opinion, particularly when one of the possible candidates (Burrow) hasn't played a lot recently so might naturally be overlooked by someone who doesn't watch him every week anyway.

For me personally Roby is still first choice number 9 and if that's the case then he can play 80 minutes if needed, so a dangerous attacking player like Burrow or Robinson who can also cover in the halves if needed would probably make more sense than having McIlorum who doesn't offer the same impact and plays better with long minutes.

The point was, suggesting an in form player should play for England isn't bias.

Good balanced view, spot on

Short answer:

England v (No offence meant here) smaller side ie France = Burrow, he will catch out lacking defence, and his own defence can be covered with little cost against a weaker side.

England v NZ/Aus = MM, very stronger in defence, can run hard when needed to give big guys a quick breather. He runs and tackles harder than Burrow.

Again, not saying Burrow isnt a great player, just that MM is more suited.

Luke Robinson went on tour, was player of the tour and a stand our for England every time he has pulled the shirt on...unlike a LOOOOOONG list of players mentioned on this thread already

It's a travesty that he hasn't been picked by Macca and the likes of Henderson has.

Apologies for the grammar btw.

Also, does noone else have a slight fear that Watkins and Jones-Bishop would get caught out defensively against Aus and NZ or is that just me?

No, it's not just you

But to be fair, that fear is the same for any wing/centre partnership

I haven't seen that much of Robinson this year, but from what I have he seems to play a bit similar to Roby to me kinda, just not quite as good.

I'm not having a go, but if I was gonna take three hookers for a squad, I would take three different styles of play if I could to use when and if.

Again I may be completely wrong here lol

I don't think Jones-Bishop would make the team given the competition on the wing. Watkins defence might be an issue but this years internationals are essentially a training ground. Most young centres struggle defensively because it's a difficult position to defend in. It's all part of the learning curve for young players and if a youngster in an important position can get games at international level without being thrown to the wolves against a side like Australia or New Zealand then I think it's something that must be done.

I don't think anyone as of yet has suggested they play together? They do still need time to develop as you won't see any Leeds fans claim they are close to the finished article, far from it. They are however two of the most promising athletic backs we've had in a while, a mixture between players of their build plus the agility of the likes of Tomkins and Charnley is a very dangerous mix. We've lacked 'big' backs for a while now.