Sinfield did alright yesterday. He just went about his business with little fuss but the balance is right in that half back pairing unless Chase decides to start testing the line more.

What a waste of a bench spot having Widdop on there is as well. Get Rob Burrow in to add some impact.

1. Tomkins
2. Charnley
3. Watkins
4. Cudjoe
5. Hall
6. Widdop
7. Sinfield

8. Hill
9. Roby
10. G Burgess
11. Ferres
12. Westwood
13. O'Loughlin - on the basis S Burgess out

14. Burrow/McIlorum
15. Graham
16. T Burgess
17. Ablett/Farrell

I don't see the point in changing the starting front row from yesterday, as they started superbly. Graham can come on and do big mins.

I'd try Widdop for this match, then make the decision of who to go with for the rest of the tournament.

Tomkins
Charnley/Briscoe
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Widdop
Sinfield
Hill
Roby
G Burgess
Ferres
Westwood
O'Loughlin

McIlorum
Ablett
Graham
Mossop

I'm forgiving a couple of poor performances, could easily have Farrell in for Ablett and both Mossop or T Burgess would be lucky to keep their places. Would like to see Widdop being given more of a run, it's a waste of a bench space.

I'm also assuming Sam will be banned.

100% spot on for me.

I agree, Sinfield did okay yesterday, better than Chase anyway.
Why people want to put a full back at 6 when he's not played there in years and Sinfield at Loose Forward when he's not played there in years I can't understand.
The World Cup has started, this isn't the time to start chopping the team around and playing players out of position.
I'd bring O'Loughlin in for the probably banned Sam Burgess and Graham in for one of Tom Burgess or Mossop and then bring Sam Burgess in for the Fiji game.

My rationale is simple - I believe he could win us matches from that position and even with lack of experience could offer alot more threat and better defence than chase. Hardaker is a good full back. Overall I feel the TEAM (after all its a team sport and when the going gets tough you're only as good as your weakest link - which to me is Chase) would be stronger. It shouldn't be about individuals and preferred positions but the team. If Sam is as talented rugby player as people say he should be able to excel anywhere in the back line.

The great German football striker Gerd Muller once played full back and was man of the match. If you've got you can play.

I recall Widnes having to put prop Mike O'Neill on the wing because of injuries in a televised match. Alex Murphy joked he'd like to see him go the full length. A minute later the ball went across and he whizzed in (Albeit from about 25 yards). Likewise, Kurt Sorensen once. That's because they were both deceptively quick and good players.

With Burgess...

Tomkins
Charnley
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Chase
Sinfield
Hill
McLlorum
G Burgess
Ferres
S Burgess
O'Loughlin

Roby (On after 20 for the remainder)
Graham (Used like at the Bulldogs on after 20 for remainder)
Westwood (Brought on for a prop and S Burgess pushed to front row)
Farrell

Without Sam Burgess start Westwood and play Mossop or Tom Burgess off the bench.

I don't think Sam Burgess should be banned - he committed himself but the guy's head was low.

I'd go with the lads with some thing to prove and the lads needing to force their way in. So

Hardaker
Briscoe
Ablett
Cudjoe
Charnley
Widdop
Sinfield
Graham
Mcilorum
Tom Burgess
Westwood
Ferres
O'loughlin

Burrow
Mossop
Farrell
G Burgess

O'Loughlin Sinfield, Roby Tomkins, hall and S Burgess all own their shirts, But I've kept Sinfield in as we need to see how Widdop plays with Sinfield and OLoughlin needs games. The others wont be harmed by a rest and it gives those fighting for or to hold on to a shirt to push for it

Given that most would go with a 2 prop and 1 back rower bench then it's a question of how you use that last bench spot.

Personally would go straight swap at hooker and have McIlorum there, but.....

If you wanted something different, I'd ignore having Widdop or Burrow there. For the latter's style to work we need quick PTB's, won't happen against the Aussies without a natural hooker leading the forwards around.

As I've suggested before this year I'd use a ploy Leeds used back in the late 90's. Iestyn Harris (very similar to Tomkins in being the wow player of his day) would start at FB at Leeds with Powell at 6. Halfway through the match we would bring St. Hilaire off the bench for Powell, slot him in at FB and move Harris up to 6.
I reckon you could go that route with Hardaker coming off the bench.
Tomkins gets more hands on the ball and you introduced another exciting runner at FB. You could do it straight forward with Tomkins then moving out to defend wide like most halves or you could defensively leave him at FB with Hardaker out there as he has decent experience of defending around that area from his time at centre.

Given charnley's half d effort I'd have him out & get Briscoe in, he still offers more than both Hall & Charnley anyway.

Whomever said Tomkins over Chase is crazy, he'd effectively be stifled to play to the plan that Chase has being asked to. Also Sam isn't a better tackler either, watch again because Chase does very well, excellent classic one on one tackle. Tomkins can't tackle the skin off a rice pudding..

1. Tomkins
2. Briscoe
3. Watkins
4. Cudjoe
5. Hall
6. Widdop
7. Sinfield
8. Hill
9. Roby
10. Gurgess
11. Farrell
12. Ferres
13. O'Loughlin

14. Surgess
15. Graham
16. Hardaker/Charnley/Chase/Mossop/Turgess/Mcllorum/Westwood/Ablett
17. Burrow

The starting line up started the game well yesterday and i'd be reluctant to change that. The bench made no impact and that's where i'd make changes.

If S Burgess is suspended then O'Loughlin comes in to loose forward (if fit), if neither of those two are available then Westwood to LF and Farrell in to SR.

Tomkins
Charnley
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Chase
Sinfield
Hill
Roby
G Burgess
Westwood
Ferres
S Burgess

Graham
Farrell
Burrow
O'Loughlin/Mossop/Ablett

Funny how people noticed Westwoods penalty indiscretions but not his titanic defensive stint which was an astonishing effort.

The two players who should loose their places are Chase and Mossop. Without any doubt.

I'm not far off agreeing there Mark. Chase isn't cutting it.