No, a player who has never done very well or gone missing in an important game/games is a choker.

Oh and Brough has played for England on his home ground. They lost.

I agree 100%, players of Hock's ability are few and far between. I've been watching the game 25 years and I'm struggling to think of a more destructive British 2nd row in that time. He's always going to be a risk but on the field is he any more a liability than Moz/Barrie Mc etc were at times? It's his off field antics that are more dubious but tbf, ref-gate aside he was great at Salford last year before he spat his dummy after the ban. Ask any Aussie player on that pitch yesterday if they'd rather face Ferres, Tomkins or Hock and they'd be lying through their teeth if they said the latter.

Btw, whoever said we need to move on because he's 31 is crazy. If we had a younger 2R version of Hock I'd be inclined to agree, but as it stands we don't. Players like him are like rocking horse and need to be managed. I just don't think McNamara has the ability to deal with the more "maverick" players.

Hock can do what ever he wants off the field
its what he does on the field that counts

agree with the mcnamara comments on mavericks
I wonder if Tony smith or nobby would have being able to get hock playing? I think maybe they would

Not in a team sport when on tour, what you do off the field is very important.

At 31 he's not going to change now, he's had God knows how many chances to prove himself and each time he lets himself down.
If he plays well and stays injury free then of course he should be considered for selection but after 10 years of Garth Hock meltdowns, and brain farts I can't help but feel a significant amount of cinicism regards Hock.

Oh, I'd take a young Morley, Jamie Peacock or Sam Burgess over Gareth Hock any day.

exactly. This is not 3 games in isolation. It is a 7 week tour, with lots of down time and time for players to occupy themselves. On past experience, Hock is not the type of player that you would want in those circumstances.

Decent Tv viewing in UK considering the KO time England Rugby League ‏@England_RL 336,000 early birds tuned in to BBC2 for our game v Australia. Audience for highlights show at 5pm was 757,000. Thanks for your support! https://twitter.com/England_RL/statu...47987902734337

Decent Tv viewing in UK considering the KO time England Rugby League ‏@England_RL 336,000 early birds tuned in to BBC2 for our game v Australia. Audience for highlights show at 5pm was 757,000. Thanks for your support! https://twitter.com/England_RL/statu...47987902734337

Quote JB Down Under="JB Down Under"Decent Tv viewing in UK considering the KO time England Rugby League ‏@England_RL 336,000 early birds tuned in to BBC2 for our game v Australia. Audience for highlights show at 5pm was 757,000. Thanks for your support! https://twitter.com/England_RL/statu...47987902734337'" 498k in Aussie and another 74k in NZ. [urlhttp://www.tvtonight.com.au/2014/11/sunday-2-november-2014.html[/url [urlhttp://www.throng.co.nz/2014/11/tv-ratings-2-november-2014/[/url

Quote JB Down Under="JB Down Under"Decent Tv viewing in UK considering the KO time England Rugby League ‏@England_RL 336,000 early birds tuned in to BBC2 for our game v Australia. Audience for highlights show at 5pm was 757,000. Thanks for your support! https://twitter.com/England_RL/statu...47987902734337'" 498k in Aussie and another 74k in NZ. [urlhttp://www.tvtonight.com.au/2014/11/sunday-2-november-2014.html[/url [urlhttp://www.throng.co.nz/2014/11/tv-ratings-2-november-2014/[/url

Am I right in thinking that shows no viewers whatsoever for Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth? Surely that can't be correct?

Won't be many when they publish the adjusted figures later in the month.......NRL and even origin struggles in SA and WA......Victoria might have a few but not many.

Agreed hock would be the sort of player you wouldn't want around on a tour

So all that development money and virtually zero interest in the sport in Victoria?

The Melbourne Storm is your blueprint for London!!