They're not going to do it now. I can't envisage a time ever again when we'll be able to compete with the big boys at a tournament.

But surely we should always pick the best players available to give us the best shot at an upset?

I fail to see how picking a load of young players now, for 3 games, will mean they develop into World class options by 2013 (only they're club environment can do that imo). Surely a better idea would be for the "best" players now to go and cause an upset

But that is again another point...has he really picked the best players available? For me, Peacock has been average this year, Morley is nowhere near as good as he was and both have been injured for large parts of the season, McIlorum, Bailey and Cudjoe imo are nowhere near good enough and never will be

We always seem to pick the same players and it hasnt got us anywhere now, just seem to have a number of players that are automatically selected each year if fit. Why not give the younger lads a try and build for the future now?? Would rather see a younger team with potential out there that have all performed well at SL level this year than see a bunch of has-beens fall short yet again!!

I think you are on cloud 9 if you think the players selected are the best 24 in England!!

Unfortunately most of the best players in England aren't English!


Morley and Peacock both did well in the play-offs and I don't think there are many props in better form than them based on the last few weeks

Micky Mac, Bailey and Cudjoe won't be in the first 17 anyway (if I was picking the side) so if they get game time it will be due to injuries or diabolical form.

Apart from Roby, we really struggle with decent British hookers nowadays, almost as bad as Centre

Exposing young players to two, possibly three weeks of intense competition against Australia and New Zealand is going to achieve nothing if they then go back to an extremely bloated and uncompetitive Super League.

We're not going to do ourselves any favours by throwing young, uncapped players into an environment that they are woefully unprepared for.

Why do people always assume we're going to get hammered by NZ? Their record against us in England has been pretty awful for the last 10 years.

Just as an aside-
Burrow, Burgess, Lomax, Bridge are all injured, and otherwise would have made the squad imo.
Shenton is injured as well, and also might have had a shot.

(Mc)Brough is out of form.

Got to agree on a couple of points though, don't think Michael McIlorum and Cudjoe are up to it.
Not sure I'd have both Morley and Peacock in the squad, maybe drop one of them depending on what other players were injury free. Tough one that, can see both sides of the argument.

I haven't seen anything of Widdop this year, so don't know how he's done, but when he played for England last time he didn't look that good. Most people seem to say he's had a good season so I'll bow to their knowledge.

Finally I agree don't think Chase and Heighington should be playing for England, even though Chase has been Superleague's best Stand off, and Heighington will add a lot to the squad.

How does the OP come to the conclusion that Atkins is better by far than Cudjoe? Who performed better when they last played an international?

I wouldn't have argued with any of the Huddersfield backs being selected, they are all very good.

McIllorum, Ablett and Bailey are my real eyebrow raising selections. I don't see what any of them would contribute in a positive sense.

Past defeats to NZ and Aus have not been down to Morley and Peacock. Don't forget that Aus picked the equally 'old stalwart' Civoneciva for this tour until he pulled out injured.

Maybe it is just personal opinion, but from what I have seen, Atkins is big, strong, got pace and a far better finisher than Cudjoe. Cudjoe is quick, but not really impressed me from what I have seen this year, unlike Atkins

cos they are half blind idiots


the kiwis have only won here twice in 11or12 games since 2002

Atkins is big, strong and pacy. So is Cudjoe
Difference is Atkins is a defensive liability and can't pass.

Cudjoe is excellent in defence, has great hands and is a good finisher, he also isn't afraid to pass to his supporting players

If Cudjoe hadn't impressed you, you haven't seen him play.

I agree with many of your points but how bad was Cudjoes pass inside against Leeds

Ryan Atkins - 23 games, 21 tries, 12 assists, 2113 metres from 244 carries, 61 tackle busts, 20 clean breaks, 278 tackles, 10 missed tackles, 4 penalties conceded

Leroy Cudjoe - 26 games, 6 tries, 9 assists, 1911 metres in 292 carries, 45 tackle busts, 7 clean breaks, 485 tackles, 29 missed tackles, 11 penalties conceded

The stats for 2011 dont lie, granted Cudjoe has made more tackles (although this could also be down to Huddersfield defending more as a team than Warrington), but other than that he isnt anywhere near. Atkins scores tries at a good rate, makes more metres, has a higher average of metres per carry, more assists, more tackle busts, more clean breaks and given away less penalties.

Therefore, I think my opinion between the 2 is fairly justified

I think Atkins’ passing game has come on considerably this year. He was poor last year’s 4 Nations, no doubt, but it is also clear that he has worked hard on his game over the past 12 months and he certainly has all the physical attributes

Personally, I would have had Atkins in the squad (not saying over Cudjoe directly)