Burgess is just as good at prop, second row or at loose forward so it makes little difference where he plays. You'll always get the same thing from him. If England need more out of their props he should play prop, if they need more in the back row he should play back row.

When it comes to the end of season internationals there is absolutely no reason why McNamara should play both Morley and Peacock. It won't benefit the international side in any way, shape or form should they play.

Burgess, Roby, Graham
Westwood, Ellis
O'Loughlin

...with Crabtree, Mossop and Hock as forwards on the bench would be my choice in the pack.
Burgess at prop for the opening part of the game and then he can be used wherever he is needed in the forwards for the rest of the game.

Spot on, Sinfield was able to control the game against NZ as our forwards got us on the front foot therefore he had time on the ball. In the final contrast Sinfield's time on the ball to Lockyer's/Thurston's. Our players couldn't get near them as our defensive line was always on the back foot as their forwards dominated us from start to finish.

the england pack has the potential to be the biggest and strongest it ever has been.

Did that really happen? Were our forwards dominated from start to finish? Many would find that difficult to accept or believe because they've bought into the oft-repeated mantra that English forwards are the best in the world and when they are not ripping it up on the international stage they are ripping it up big style and caning it in the NRL.

The problem with England's forwards is the way they play as a unit. When Australia have the ball there are players in motion providing options for the halfbacks. When England have the ball too many players do nothing off the ball. In defence the Aussies gang up but are still able to get back into position for the next tackle because they understand the absolute importance of controlling the PTB.

The problem then is that the official stats look OK - yardage, tackles etc. Our forwards seem to scratch their heads and wonder why we've lost. Peacock explicitly blamed the quality of the backs a few years ago - the game I saw in Brisbane on that tour the forwards got mullered (except Morley) but probably had OK individual stats. The backs were really, really bad as well though....

IMO our pack is getting better, but its the play as a unit which needs to get much better.

I don't disagree with you, O'Loughlin is certainly a creative player but I wouldn't put him on a par with Sinfield in that regard (all a matter of opinion of course). My comment was purely on the grounds of "if you want a loose forward who can help cart the ball up field then O'Loughlin's more suited to that than Sinfield is"

I'd take the GB pack from the last Ashes series over this one any day.

8. Fielden
9. Newton
10. Morley
11. Peacock
12. Farrell
13. Forshaw

15. Anderson
16. McDermott
17. Gilmour

Now that's a pack. Morley, Peacock & Fielden in their prime. And the Aussies genuinely wary of McDermott and Morley's aggression. Plus Sculthorpe at 6. Hard as nails that team.

The current England pack is nowhere near aggressive enough IMO.

Personally I'm interested in the England/GB pack's effectiveness rather than their aggression. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the individual stats can look awesome while the pack as a unit hasn't functioned. If there are no runners off the ball, nor multiple-options for the DH/SH then it means that the defence can marshall itself well because it's all too predictable, leaving no gaps for the pacier players to exploit.

I agree, and I agree with BrisbaneRhino's post. I also think a lack of aggression is a problem as well. The recent WCC being a good example where we matched the Aussies aggression, in recent internationals I don't think we have. And I don't think there is anyone in the current England pack that the Aussies are wary of taking on.

All valid points.

Another crucial point you've missed is that England's forwards rarely function for the full 80 minutes and it's during those lapses in concentration, fatigue, etc, when Australia run riot and a blowout scoreline is the inevitable consequence.

Defintiely a more aggressive pack than the current incumbents. However, aggression doesn't compensate for lack of options, organisation, an inability to play for 80 minutes at the required intensity and playing as a well-oiled unit. A lot of those forwards in your list above also endured some terrible hammerings back in the day - 64-10 and 44-4 immediately spring to mind.

Seriously, you just cannot compare WCC fixtures with the intensity and importance of full-blown international test fixtures against Australia which actually mean something. WCC fixtures are pre-season warm-up games for the Australian club sides where the conditions and timing are hugely stacked in favour of the SL clubs.

swiftcorn - I think part of the reason that our forwards are blowing after 60 minutes is exactly the same as our other problems. We play a one-up attack in the forwards, then spread the ball wide to the backs without much involvement from the pack. Our attack up the middle is generally easy meat for the Aussies. Their forwards don't have to make up lots of ground every tackle and can tackle as a unit.

Then they get the ball, and ask questions on multiple plays, making our big men run around to cover and generally tire them out. They also make fewer unforced errors at bad times and parts of the field.

Its like playing someone better at tennis - you can be just as fit but you'll end up knackered because they run you off your feet.

BTW I'd also add that a lot of SL fans also underestimate the sheer physicality of the top NRL sides.

I'd also say a lot of SL fans underestimate the quality and aggression of forwards from other SL clubs.