OK, I'll let you play the parentage card.
However residency is another matter entirely, especially if you have already played for another nation, and even more so if you've publicly declared that it's your dream to play for your home country and then because you don't get selected you play the residency card to allow you to play for someone else.

Doesn't have anything to do with that either, IMO, as long as you're entitled, for whatever reason, to represent a particular country. But when you make your choice, you should stick with it, like marriage, for better or worse, etc.

My main point here is re. Broughy, who's definitely good enough to be first choice for England. But he made his first choice a while back for Scotland, and the rules should mean he should stick with that. Can't understand those who lament the fact that he won't be playing for England. It's pot luck, not pick and choose. And that's why I'd give Chase a wide berth too.

Residency should only be concluded if the individual has been naturalised and has a passport.

Also, that individual should not have featured at International level at any age group for any other country - a once only choice, no going back!

The exception here is the home nations - in that they can also opt for a GB Lions shirt for when we play real test matches once again!

Little bit disappointed by the sulking I'm reading really - Kirkmond is an absolute warrior and has played whilst unfit this year for wakefield. That's not what gets you an England jersey though, in fact it probably shaves a few years off your career. He has also stood out in a wakefield pack that struggled most of the year (like it or not, it's true)

Whilst being a very good wakefield player, I don't think he's in the same class as Westwood and Burgess, and we could have taken 2 packs really.

This is probably the best squad we've had for a great number of years - hence the disappointment at some of the exclusions rather than the INclusions (other than the tired whining about Chase)

for the first time we have about 6/7 players who the Aussies and Kiwis would kill for.

Alas whilst arguing about second rowers, I feel we are desperately short in the three quarter line. The Aussies could take 6 centres, wingers and full backs who are better than ours.

I would however combat Inglis by putting Ablett at centre - he's the only one big enough to handle him.

Also, considering Graham and Burgess are props used to playing 80 minutes, I'd have taken Morley as front row impact over Mossop. Even though he can only play 25 minutes these days, if he spells well with these two he could still be devastating.

Other than that, I reckon we should play Sam Burgess at loose, and have Sinfield 6 with Burrow 7 - spell chase with Roby and move Burrow to hooker in the mean time.

All just ideas, but I like the squad as it is and the potential is there

Sinfield to Hooker Widdop and Burrows in halves

To be honest I don't believe the pack did struggle last season. They were the best aspect of the side and more than held their own against any team in the league. What let Trinity down was the shambolic defending out wide and non existent game management.

Spot on and how Hockand Farrell get the nod over Kirmond is beyond me - surelyeven a Cas fan can´t justify that!!

Struggled? Our pack was pretty solid all year and we mixed it with the best of them. We never got hammered down the middle, the wings were our main problem.

is that something you would like to see or are you mocking it?

If it's the former, why play Sinfield at hooker?! That's the same mentality as the excuse for a coach. Novel idea, but play players in the positions they've been played in all season. Sinfield will no doubt play 6 instead of the current Melbourne Storm starting 6, and not 13 where he should be instead of a bloke who's currently limping around with a boot on his foot. The Sinfield at 6 for England experiment has been done to death!!

This isn't something exclusive to Mcbanana either. David Waite used to play Sculthorpe at 6 too. WHY?!

Entirely correct. The switching nations issue is only an issue because outside England, Australia and NZ, every other nation hardly ever plays. Asking a player to play for say Scotland or Samoa, would be asking them to give up on international RL bar the WC and a token friendly every now and then. Until the 2nd tier nations are regularly playing each other and the top tier nations, this switching issue is always going to occur.

admittedly I forgot about Widdop lol

For me it's got to be either you were born in the country or one of your parents were. Nothing else. Everything else just defeats the object of international competition imo. If you moved here at 3 months and one of your parents were born in England then fair enough. if they were both born wherever you were then as you say one of those freak chance kind of things and you play for them or no-one. There may be examples provided whereby this stringency seems unfair and probably is and I won't deny that I wholly support the likes of Mo Farah when winning gold (that's just my inherent hypocrisy). However the integrity of international competition as a whole should come first and all these residency rules make a mockery of the ethos behind international sport for me. Chase is the worst example, you know he'd love to be playing for someone else

That's the spirit!