he's not going to be as good as if he played there all year is he? he hasnt been that great at stand off this year, and he's a far better stand off than he is a centre. I can understand your desire to get him in the team as on his day he can be a great player but i would rather play someone in the position they play all year than just slot them in somewhere for the sake off it. Theres no recent evidence to suggest that pryce would do well in the centres.

Bridge has been far better than Pryce this year

Neither however should be in the final England Squad

From memory Bridge had played 2 or 3 games more.

I was just responding to someone who said Yeaman's stats are better than Bridge and therefore he is more deserving than Bridge to be in the England train-on team. In reality this wasn't true.
It's good that people are suggesting alternative names rather than just slagging Smith off without justifying who they would rather pick. I think certain players may feel slightly hard done to such as Welham, but I don't think there is a clearcut case of someone who is clearly more deserving than Bridge and Harrison who hasn't made the squad, Yeaman included.

bridge and yeaman are nothing alike, kirk has always been argued about as a centre cum second rower which is what was holding him back from being a truly class centre and kicking on, more in the style of senior and latterly atkins where he runs hard and direct, bridge is a gleeson footwork style where he's got the ability to put the step on and accelerate around a defender through a gap, this is how in our eye's he's done a bloody good job of replacing big gleeson. And some of us have been saying for ages that he's a below average halfback but would make a great centre.

Ben Harrison I can understand as IMO he has great potential but Chris Bridge? Seriously?

I think I'd prefer Fielden in the squad than Bridge.

The biggest problem I have with this is not the selection of players for a train on squad that in reality is not going to beat Australia any way.

It's the blatant abuse of powers as the national head coach in appearing to be picking players for the squad becuase they play for him. ATEOTD and IMO neither Harrison (yet) or Bridge would be any where near the squad if Smith wasn't in charge.

I like Smith as a coach and the effect he has had on the domestic teams he has coached cannot be argued with, however at international level he just has not cut it (not had the cattle perhaps).

I just don't like the advantage this gives him/Warrington when it comes to delivering a message of 'come play for me and the national setup awaits', nor do I feel to comfortable in having some of the leagues best youngsters in the presence of someone who is appears to not be bothered about abusing his position.

This squad would of had 8 Warrington players in it if Atkins hadn't pulled out, thats more than both Leeds and Saints are likely to have and don't tell me that Smith didn't play the I'm the England head coach card when trying to sign Myler/Atkins

I don't particularly blame Smith more the RFL/system, it was the same whilst Noble was in charge it just didn't seem as 'in your face' as it does right now.

I like the idea of train on squads and bringing players who are on the fringe into the setup for the experience but as far as I am concerned the coaching setup should be headed by a full time coach (no idea who) who is not linked to any club and is therefore not providing any unfair advantage to any team in the league.

Whilst last year was pretty poor, the way you and many others talk, you would think the 2007 series against NZ never happened.
How did the team we stuffed do a year later?

Is it a full time job though? What does he do for 10 months of the year? Who are you going to get for the job if it's a full time role? The honest answer is that we would get a coach not regareded as good enough to have an SL or NRL head coaching position.

There also the fact that in a sport not awash with cash, a full time England coach might not be the best use of what would be a much greater expense for a full time coach than it would for a PT coach.

Beating half-a-side is hardly comparable. Look how they did against us in the 2008 World Cup.

IIRC, they had a full 17 out each game.
Look at what we did to them in 2007.

Why do we have such a hard time accepting success? It's almost as if our supporters prefer to see their team lose, so they can bitch about it.

now that is a bold statement!! (not literally )

OK, even if I gave you 2007 (which was against a very depleated and poor NZ setup, which if I recall correctly, changed it's coaching setup immediately afterwards) last year was more than embarassing and that was with Smith full time, how can it possibly help the situation to go backwards and then make him part time?

You know what....the 17 England play this series will be quite different to that of 2008. Will Australia and NZ be trying to qualify out their wins over us in 2008 because of that?
Why do we find it so hard to accept success?