The Burgess twins will be crashing up the middle, and James Graham will be making lots of yards, giving Widdop and his halves partner plenty of time to put Watkins, Shenton, and Whitehead through gaps out wide. England will score quite a few tries against Australia. The question is whether the English defense can hold against the fleet footed Michael Jennings and others.

England's defence has not 'held' in recent memory when Australia move the ball around. Just because you can make dents up the middle doesn't mean you can score for fun either.

As ever I hope I'm wrong, but it's been a long time since I watched GB/England vs Australia and actually thought we had a chance.

The key for England is to control field position.

If the forwards can make good yards up the middle and the halves kick well, then if Australia want to go around rather than through they will have to do it from deep and risk turning the ball over near their own line. Australia are significantly weaker at half-back IMO with DCE rather than Thurston.

Too often in the past England have kicked straight down Slater's throat and given Australia breathing space away from their own line to play a more expansive game. Back them up into the shadow of their own posts, compress in the middle of the field and make them take risks to beat you.

I don't disagree with the tactic, but I do question how potent England will be, even with the big boppers making hay.

I think the big key for us is belief. I've not watched an England side play with any against the Aussies for a long time. I look at the sides on paper for this tournament and whilst guys like Inglis and Smith ensure they probably sit that bit above us the rest of their team doesn't hold it's usual fear factor. If the lads get in to them and aren't afraid to chance their arm now and again we have a chance of getting over them.

The same applies to the Kiwi game. They really aren't all that and we should be looking to win that game. There should be no fear factor about playing the Kiwis at all.

I admire you optimism but I think it is misplaced - we need to score plenty to beat either Australia or NZ because both will score plenty against us - not sure we have the quality in the backs to break either of the two sides down. We haven't got a real quality half back who can control and dictate play that is a huge issue for me.

On Samoa - if we cannot beat them there are so real questions that need answering. It is a squad of pretty average NRL players that neither Australia nor NZ wanted to claim.

Even though Australia have Thurston, Slater and Hayne not available we will still need to be at our very best to beat Australia. The likes of Moylan, Mansoor, Walker and Johnstone still have the quality and could be the future stars for them. They have a lot of young players with a point to prove.

If we cant beat a 2nd string Kangaroo squad with a 3rd string pack then the english game really is in dire trouble.

Don't get me wrong I know it's one heck of a challenge still. I just want to see us compete and really throw everything in to it. They're both top sides but not as strong as they could be and that should instill some optimisim in the players most importantly.

I just don't want to see us play like rabbits caught in headlights like we've done at times in the past.

We always will.Australia could field probably 3 different sides that could beat us.Obviously with them missing a few key names this time it means we should at the very least compete but they are still big favourites on home soil.

Any talk of a 2nd or a 3rd string side is just b*ll*x . The Australian team is the Australian team , no excuses no 2nd string. It's the best team in Aus at that point in time. Just like we won't have Sam B playing for us, they will also have players missing. It has always been the case. Inthe past when England had key players missing the usual suspects say 'no strength in depth' when Australia play it's 'a 2nd rate team' - absolute tripe.

Big difference between missing 2-3 names and 19 potential first team members! Of the squad likely to take the field only 4-5 of them are legitimate first choice players. Not that the rest arent good but not world class by any stretch and certainly not close to being equal to players that are missing. If NZ dont win this they want a rocket and a new coach!

Likely Kangaroo team:

1. Inglis
2. Tupou (R)
3. Jennings
4. Walker (R)
5. Johnston (R)
6. Cherry Evans
7. Cronk
8. Scott
9. Smith (C)
10. Woods
11. Hoffman
12. Thaiday
13. Bird
14. Papali
15. Parker
16. Guerra (R)
17. Farrah

(R) = Rookie

One of the weakest Australian packs I have ever seen, very little in the prop forward dept. Such a shame we lost Sam, the english pack would have made mince meat of them.

If it says Australia on the match day ticket then it's Australia lining up on the pitch. They will play hard and be hard to beat.

I don't buy this weakest team in years- the same thing has been said countless times in the last 10 years. Players move on and are replaced by thise with less of a reputation, that's how it's always been.

If you don't buy it then you are a goose. This is the weakest Australian team in 50 years. Matthew Scott is not playing and the only specialist prop in the side is Aaron Woods. The Burgess twins and James Graham with the support of Chris Hill will make mincemeat of the Australian pack.

The Kiwis are without Jared Wharea-Hargreaves and Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, both of whom are key first choice players.

If England cannot win this series then they have no hope in the future of international rugby league.