I would add Chris Clarkson and Zak Hardaker to that IMO.

The area we've always struggled in is in the backs and that seems to be changing - including in those key positions of half back

so much more competition for places. Compare the possible 3/4 we have now to those we had 5 years ago. Same for halfbacks.

infinitely better.

Has there been a generation of missed talent or something?

We seem to have gone from a backline of 30 year olds to a backline of 21 year olds. What happened to the decent players of the last 9 years?!

They were played by Aussie journeymen

Lockyer is in doubt and will most probably not play the 4N. Edit] or maybe not: www.nrl.com/sheens-awaits-medica ... fault.aspx

Lockyer is in doubt and will most probably not play the 4N. Edit] or maybe not: www.nrl.com/sheens-awaits-medica ... fault.aspx

The good thing is mate theres loads that could be added to the list which is the first time we've been able to say that in a long while. The players I mentioned are ones i'd pick here and now but those 2 are in a long line of guys just off first team selection but they could make it.

Guys like the 2 you mention can be added along with Gaskell, Houghton,Charnley, McGillvary, Farrell, Clark, Arundel, Watkins, Watts, Westerman and so on.

Pretty promising.

We just need to make sure with the NRL salary cap going up we don't start filling our sides with reserve graders from down under ahead of playing our own.

if we go back to the original question..."is england starting to become very strong"

compared to where we where for much of the latter half the the 2000's then yes we are...

for the past 4 years or so we have had,on paper, the strongest pack....often letdown by the 1-7...the pack can't do it all by themselves.....i still would'nt swap any of our pack for the aussies or kiwis...even cam smith (prefer roby's direct style)

if you look at what we have now....

our 1,6,7 & 9 spine (tomkins,widdop,brough/lomax &roby) looks as good as anything we've since the early 1990's imo

our current crop of wingers (hall,charnley,tom briscoe & j-mac) are as good as anything the aussies have

our are still abit of a issue..not as bad as it was....but as i've said before if we pair up our successful club partnerships like briscoe & yeaman,charnley & j.tomkins....it will be stronger,both in attack & defense,than if we stick someone like reed & shenton with briscoe & whoever the other winger is gonna be....we have to play to our strengths....


we are heading in the right direction i fully believe that......all we need to do is sack ste McNamara though...i would'nt trust him to coach a north west counties team let alone the national team

what we need to do is have a full time director of rugby,to oversee both the england team and the knights,to organise training camps,keep tabs on players,identify talent etc... someone like a brian noble,mal reilly or even wayne bennett

going down the director of rugby route means we only need part time england & knights coaches...i'd have nathan brown as england coach and ellery hanley as knights coach and then develop a old "liverpool bootroom" mentality where the knights coach is effectively seen as the future england coach...so not only will this set up develop the players it will develop the coaches too

i also think we need a 5 or 6 man national team selection committee made up of the director of rugby,england & knights coaches plus 2 others (former players/coaches,current coaches)

I think the DoR route may be better as well. At the end of the day, it is not an attractive enough position for a top coach to have full-time as there aren't enough games. However, a DoR can organise everything for all national squads (elite, Knights, academies, possibly students) and hire appropriate coaches to do the roles.

All the head coach has to do is coach then. He'd obviously have to work in liason with the DoR like, but would take a lot of pressure off them.

That is quite simply incorrect and a re-writing of history.

England had conceded two quick tries (Slater and Morris) and trailed by 10 points prior to Shenton getting injured. The hammering and embarrassing defeat which ensued was already well under way and written into the script before Shenton got injured. If anything, the injury provided England with a welcome breather because they are incapable of maintaining the required intensity for the full 80 minutes. They were already gone and there for the taking.

1. S Tomkins
2. Hall
3. Reed
4. Atkins
5. Briscoe
6. Widdop
7. Lomax
8. Graham
9. Roby
10. Burgess
11. Ellis
12. Westwood
13. O'Loughlin

14. Robinson
15. J Tomkins
16. Heighington
17. Mossop

Thats our best possible side imo. Some of those players are injured, but when fully fit, I reckon that side could test the Aussies and Kiwis, if not turn them over. Shame about the coach, ey?

New Zealand are quite clearly proof of taking advantage of an injection of increasing numbers of Kiwi players who are NRL quality and play in the NRL.

England are quite clearly proof of Super League standard players not being good enough to beat a bunch of Aussie and Kiwi Exiles.

It looks a cracking side that mate. Like you said, shame about the coach.

Agree with what Spuds been saying too, but I personally think Cam Smith is the best player around, so he just pinches the 9 instead of Roby.

No we haven't... there's no evidence to back up that statement of yours whatsoever.

I've seen our pack get bullied by the Aussie and Kiwi packs down under in 2006, 2008 and 2010 and it's embarrassing. I've attended games where we've been hammered by the Kiwis by 30 points and the Aussies by 50 points.

Seeing as though this thread is about the future of the England team, I’m glad you brought up the Exiles game. It was a very encouraging result for England wasn’t it... a four point defeat by a team that has a total of over 200 international caps between them and many many appearances in your beloved NRL (or does ‘NRL quality’ only count when it supports your arguments?)