So tell me, which part of my previous post is inaccurate?

You spelt Morley wrong for starters.

England/GB have been picking loose forwards at stand-off pretty much ever since I started watching the game in the early 90s. It's not worked before and it's not going to magically start working now. FFS.

Beyond that, however, I can't complain. I'm certain Atkins would have been dropped if we had an alternative, but as Clubb was clearly picked as the squad's token cockney then we don't. Cudjoe will do alright, I reckon. I like the look of that pack, as well. Big, mobile and aggressive.

Not the words I'd use.

Westwood and Graham will stand up as usual, but the rest worry me. They were all thrown about like rag dolls against NZ. There wont be many metres coming from that pack.

Remember in the play offs when all the us lot where slating madge for moving lockers to 6 but he started his career here for wigan, has a good set of hands and has actually partnered robinson before in the halves!

He also has strong defence on the fringes so I wonder if that was a major factor in him playing 6 plus his link with sam tomkins will be very good as has been the case at wigan this year.

Also glad burgess is at 8!

When we put together a set or two against NZ we ate up the yards. If we can cut out the disruption from errors and penalties (big 'if', if form is anything to go by) we'll do okay up front IMO. We'll probably struggle elsewhere, though.

So long as we start with aggression and passion we will make yards, look at the Kumuls last week, first set the Aussies hit up, the ocker forwards got driven back each time.

All we need to do is start well. We score first, we have a chance. Oz score first, and i fear they'll score 30+

I think they have to be honest and target 20 points per half as a deficit to beat. If they achieve that then they have done well IMO.

This could easily turn into a 70-80 point blowout if Australia score early.

The one thing that annoyed me about the match against the Kiwis was England's inability to follow and chase. England need to get in their faces, quickly, and hurt them physically and mentally.

Well it's true that not even Lockyer could play without his head.

Don't be ridiculous.

We played horribly and lost by 14 against the world champions, but now we're going to lose by 80 against the weakened runners up?

It couldn't "easily" turn into a 70 point blowout at all, there isn't even a remote chance of that sort of scoreline.

Great news for Cudjoe, Lunt, Crabtree and Harrison. I can understand why Widdop has had to be dropped. Tomkins looks so much better at full back. We then have to find space for Westwood for his kicking so moving O'Loughlin to stand off to counter Lockyer is also understandable even though that pushes Brown out, which is a shame because he is a quality specialist stand off. Crabtree for Griffin is a straight swap and simply Crabtree offers something a bit different to the other props.

Tony Clubb should not have been on that plane above Martin Gleeson.

You have to have near-religious faith in Brown to be able to maintain this position after the last two matches, in which he's been frankly rubbish. Brown strikes me as indicative of the problem we have in the UK game. He had a couple of good games when he was much younger, and Eddie and Stevo started referring to him as "exciting young star" "potentially world class" etc. The result was lots of fans began to assume that must be true. Yet he never lived up to any early potential, and is essentially a standard plodder. Unfortunately, McNamara - who I believe to be possibly the worst coach in SL based on his years at Bradford - seems to have been taken in too.

It's not just Brown, by the way. Eddie and Stevo did the same to Ste Tyrer at St Helens, when anyone with eyes could see he was destined for Salford or the National Leagues. Others who've been bigged up into something far beyond their actual ability are Steven Tyrer and Scott Moore, off the top of my head. But there's plenty more.