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.

What does playing Deacon at 7 have to do with O'Loughlin being a playmaker from 13?

Deacon was effectively brought in to do the same job that Sinfield does for Leeds (from stand-off). The fact that Wigan were so desperate for someone to fill this role with O'Loughlin in the team (not to mention Finch, Tomkins and Leuluai) suggests that O'Loughlin isn't quite the playmaker some Wigan fans would like us to believe.

This isn't to say I think England need a playmaker at 13 or that Sinfield should play over O'Loughlin, or at all, FWIW.

nothing much in my opinion but it suggests that SOL doesnt have a kicking game, after all you wouldnt put Deacon in your side as a support runner or playmaker. Whatever is said about SOL he is not as good of a playmaker as Sinfield. Thats why Sinny gets the nod for me at 13.

As I have said before there is no point matching Australia tactically, they will batter us. We have to beat them tactically if we are too beat them at all.

Deacon was brought in because Wigan needed another halfback. It's not exactly rocket science. Deacon was effectively a replacement for Tim Smith. I don't see why needing a halfback has any relevance to O'Loughlin.

Besides, if you'd watched Wigan play and understood the way that Maguire structured the team you'd know that in 2010 O'Loughlin and Deacon were the main playmakers while in 2011 it was O'Loughlin and Finch. In 2011 Deacon's role within the side was very simple; pretty much pass a bit and kick a bit but he wasn't really a playmaker. He was in there for consistency but Maguire continued to pick him when he should have been dropped.

Plus, Maguire and Wane have both been confident in using O'Loughlin in the halves. If he wasn't a good playmaker he wouldn't be playing there but actually in the early part of 2010 his creative input at stand off was vital.

Deacon was only in the team for his kicking game. The only thing that lockers doesnt have as a playmaker is a kicking game which should come from one of the halves anyway imo. Everything else a playmaker does Lockers can do and i have seen him do. Add to the fact he is an immense defender and thats why Wigan fans and many people rate him so highly.

The key to England improving their kicking game is not the fact that the players don't have a kicking game but, IMO its more to do with the fact that when we play Austrailia we struggle for field position because our forwards haven't been able to match their Aussie counterparts.

For example, in the game against NZ in the last 4 nations our forwards dominated and our kicking game was good in comparison to Marshall and Foran's especially because we were kicking off the front foot in good field position where as NZ were kicking from there own 40 on most occasions and rarely turned the England backs around.

In the final our pack got dominated and as a result our kicking game was poor. We've bought into the myth that our pack is the best in the world when in reality its not. We have some good individuals but we lack the speed, and skill and off ball movement the Aussie forwards seem to have. Until we improve in this area we will continue to fall well short.

Deacon was brought in to organise and also his kicking game as its what Maguire thought would compliment Leulaui. Also Maguire had indentified Sam for 1 so we needed another halfback. Deacons job was to organise and be first receiver before passing onto our playmakers ie. Tommy, Sam and O'Loughlin. O'loughlin has a fantastic passing game, runs good lines and also in the last few years has started controlling games which alot of fans dont notice. He also has the size and physicality to match upto the Aussies. If he'd been fit for all the internationals over the last few years and played at LF i think alot of other british fans would recognise just how good he actually is.

Nathan Browns opinion of O'loughlin ... "I think O'Loughlin is comfortably the best British player in the game. He's better than Burgess and Ellis and when they dominate so easy he can control the game very well."

rlhttps://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME

Brough can do the organising and kicking and play first receiver mainly with the likes of Tomkins, O'Loughlin, Lomax or Widdop running of him. Roby at 9 with impact and abit of tact from Burrow of the bench.

Quote: Exeter Rhino "As I have said before there is no point matching Australia tactically, they will batter us. We have to beat them tactically if we are too beat them at all.'"

That doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know what your defenition of "playmaker" is but I assure you that O' Loughlin is as much of a playmaker as Sinfield is. Anyone who watches Wigan regularly will know this as he is regularly used as an extra pivot to overload defences and create overlaps. He is also a natural fit as a back-rower and has the size and defensive ability to defend centrally against the Aussies, which Sinfield doesn't. A kicking game is not high on the list of priorities of what we need from our loose forward, and that is the only asset Sinfield has the O' Loughlin doesn't

The biggest problem England have and have had for years is our organisation and structure in attack, or lack of one. This probably down to us not having a regular combination at half-back, but the coach also has to take some of the blame too. Five drives for a kick is not going to beat Australia. We did spread the ball around a little in the Wembley game and got some success but that all disappeared in the Four Nations final as we reverted to type and got zero joy as a result

Burgess will be (well, should be) England's loose forward so the Sinfield/Flanders debate is irrelevant. Not to mention they play 2 different positions.

couldn't agree more.... when everyone's fully fit Burgess should play 13 ahead of both of them.