Got there before me!

I like pointless threads where people extol the selection virtues of players who play for clubs they support whilst slagging off as useless the selection of players who play for their rivals. Not that any of it matters because - despite the usual hyperbole about England's chances in any tournament one cares to name - we all know they'll get hammered by Australia no matter which players are selected or who happens to be the coach.

Is there a limit to the number of exiles per SL club? I thought it was 2 only per club last year?

Dusgusting that we have provided 4 players to the England set up, we'll have to sign more Aussies to counter act this

Chase actually sang the National Anthem if you bothered to take the "Wakey criticise everything Cas" glasses off.

Further to this, his game was actually stifled by Sinfield who dominated everything. When Chase actually got his hands on the ball down the left, he put in some good assists. Playing with someone like Brough, who provides that kicking game, will bring the best out of Rangi.

England

1. Tomkins
2. Jones-Bishop
3. Watkins
4. Hardaker
5. Hall
6. Sinfield
7. Brough
8. Carvell
9. Roby
10. Peacock
11. Jones-Buchanan
12. Westwood
13. O'Loughlin

14. Burrow
15. Mossop
16. Crabtree
17. Hock

Exiles

1. Hodgson
2. Monaghan, J
3. Millard
4. Carmont
5. Richards
6. Hohaia
7. Leuluai, T
8. O'Meley
9. Monaghan, M
10. Puletua
11. Menzies
12. Delaney
13. Fitzgibbon

14. Kaufusi
15. Manu
16. Leuluai, K
17. Waterhouse

Not sure how anyone can say this squad looks too old when the average age is about 25! It looks a good blend of youth and experience. Not to mention the likes of Widdop, Reed, Graham and Burgess would no doubt have been in.

Neither does playing Loose Forrwards in every pivot position, which has also been proven numerous times.

I wouldn't argue with playing Sinfield at 13 for England though, if, if he's allowed to be a play maker as at Leeds - if they're asking him to spend more time driving it in, with the occasional offload, then O'Loughlin is a far more suitable choice for that role.

Mossop should be a in front of Peakcock and Morley he has been imense so far thus season and most of last season.

The debate about Chase and Sinfield?? I wonder would this be going on if Brough wasn't injured last year? I think that Sinfield is a very good player at Leeds same with Maguire I also think that if they were at a lesser team no offence but say Wakey or London they wouldn't be the same players and be found wanting. I also think that Sinfield is a very good rugby player but not one who excels in any particular position.

I also think that the England team should be GB, this way if someone like Henderson, Brough, Mickey Mc play for Ireland, Scotland Wales they can move onto the GB team. And the Knights team be called England. So in essence use the home nations as a stepping stone to get in the National team. Saves all this debate.

I'm not sure Sydney Roosters would let him off from a weeks coaching to let him play in this game. I think we have players in SL who could do a job instead of bringing in coaches from 12k miles away to play for the exiles.

I still can't understand why people think that playing O'Loughlin at 13 means you lose a playmaker. That's exactly what O'Loughlin does at Wigan, he just does everything else you expect of a loose forward too. What's the point in having a playmaker at 13 who isn't effective when going direct when you can have a playmaker who is good at playing more direct at the same time?

Maguire's selection of Deacon for Wigan suggests otherwise.

If we're relying on playing a 6 at 13 in Sinfield, England are screwed. The only reason you would consider Sinfield at 13 (imo) is for a kicking game, but as I've said, if we can't get that from either of our HB's, we don't have a chance of winning anything anyway.