Deacon is terrible. He was never good enough even in his pomp. Sean Long is the man they should have called up, if he's fit.

I will support any England or GB rugby league player irrelevant of club if they are proud to represent their country and they give their all (God knows I would have done if I was good enough)

What I won't do is support a player who walks out on his country in a strop half way through a tournament

I would rather we lost all three games this year than see Sean Long play

I disagree. A player like Deacon is needed to control 1st receiver. During the GF Deacon gave Sam T the space to do his stuff and it worked really well. Plus Deacon has a good kicking game which England has been lacking for years. England have loads of running HBs and not enough generals to boss the team. Deacon for me fits the bill (Brough would have done too if he wasnt playing for Scotland). Just because he does not do the flash stuff does not mean he is a crap player. He would fullfil a role in this England team that has been missing for yonks.

watch the game back from the other night! deacon was outstanding!

well the 1,6,7 from the mid season international was 1. widdop, 6.brown, 7.tomkins which is how i think we will go

Id like us to go 1. sam 6. widdop 7. brown

I would play Tomkins at FB.

Brown would play standoff. He is developing into a proper footballing standoff at Hudds who knows how to make the ball do the talking.
Put him with a pacey scrum half eg Robinson and it gives England pace in the backline along with footballing option, which will cause the aussies and Kiwis defensive problems. Robinson and Brown remember will also be familar with each others play due to being teammates.
This should in theory give the England 3 quarters more room to move in, while also meaning the forwards have fewer hard yards to make.

Lets see if Mcbanana can put this into practise.
Im certainly encouraged that the 3 quarters all have a reasonable degree of pace.

regardless of what number Tomkins has on his back, he will still play wide out, chiming in like he does from full back. Having a 7 on your back doesnt necessarily mean he will be first man. I would put Widdop first man, brown and tomkins out wide

No, he wasn't. Thomas Leuleuai was your best player in that game.

Deacon has retired anyway, why call him up now?

The point about an organising scrum half is a good one. Having first receiver give the team some structure is never a bad idea. Can Robinson not do that? I haven't seen a lot of him but if he was given the task of just setting up plays for the forwards and getting good ball to Tomkins/Widdop/Brown is there any reason he couldn't?

Keep Tomkins at full-back.
Go with the Brown-Robinson combo in the halves.
Slot Widdop into the 'problem' position of centre.
Sorted!

1. S.Tomkins
2. Hall
3. Widdop
4. Atkins
5. Briscoe

6. Brown
7. Robinson

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

14. Fielden
15. Westwood
16. J Tomkins
17. Cudjoe

Hate to say I told you so.

Hate to say I agreed with you

That seems to be the consensus around here.

lol

I can't knock Tomkins' performances this season. He's certainly been one of Wigan's most influential players and deserves his England spot.

But, I just don't see what he brings to the table that will worry Australia or New Zealand. Tomkins' greatest strength is that he has no weaknesses. He's got good hands, foot speed, speed of thought, a good kicking game as well as a good brain. But I don't think he's exceptional in any of these areas - and to really worry the Kangaroos and NZ you need to be exceptional in at least one. Nothing less.

Of course, the response will be "He was dangerous last year against them". And it's true - he was. But let's not forget that we've seen this kind of thing happen before with rookies. Kids come in and play a blinder against the Australians or New Zealand or both and then you see a gradual drop-off in effectiveness over time (Martin Gleeson is a good example). Part of the reason is that kids often play without fear. It takes a few years before pressure begins to exert itself and the neuroses develop that encumber players (in any sport). But I think the major factor is familiarity: the Aussies and Kiwis simply haven't had time to develop counter-strategies that nullify the strengths of the player in question.

I may be wrong about Tomkins. I certainly hope I am because I desperately want to see us beat Australia. But I have this nagging suspicion that whilst he will probably never let us down, his lack of one truly outstanding facet of his game (I suppose you could call such "an edge"icon_wink.gif means he will be no more effective than the host of would be halves that have gone before him these dreary past three decades.