Either way we'll get stuffed by Oz.



Sinfield is too slow and will be shut down easily; Widdop cannot organise and needs Smith and Cronk. Now that would be better...find a reason and good enough incentive for the latter two to represent England.





Now who the heck suggested Watkins as England FB?? Credibility shot to pieces there methinks

I wouldn't agree with this at all. Gareth Widdop is in the best team in the world for a good reason, not just because he is playing with Smith and Cronk.

To keep them under the cap?

Widdop's is fine player however, I think that Myler, Chase, McGuire etc would do just as well playing alongside the pivots Melbourne have.

Indeed.



He's also cheap, I would imagine.



Melbourne's answer to Ian Kirke.

I know. I hate it when people ruin their credibility by suggesting stupid positional switches and other far-fetched team selections.

Steady on.





He was good enough for GH to try and sign him.

So was Kirke..... successfully in fact.

You really think that?



Widdop is a decent half back, playing on limited cash in a team of very expensive Superstars.

Widdopp has very little experience in either organising the Storm or kicking in open play. From what I've seen I think he could do a lot more, and would if it were necessary. Until one of Smith/Cronk retires, Widdopp will remain a bit-part player - then I think we'll see him move up the ranks to take on more responsibility. At the moment he'd have to be played alonsgide Sinfield rather than replace him, if he plays at all.



I'd be really happy if England had a stand off (or scrum half) that could control a game and be dangerous with the ball. But we don't. Sinfield, for all his faults (lack of pace etc) is the sort of player who can keep a team structured throughout a game, and generally shows the sort of calmness and control that is vital. I don't like the fact that Sinfield may be the best stand off option for England, but I fully understand McNamara's reasoning in selecting him.



The difference is Australia have halfbacks who can provide structure and are outstanding playmakers.



BTW George Burgess is looking like a complete monster. If he stays fit and in Souths' first team, he'll be an automatic pick for the bench.

I'd agree with all of that, Brisbane.



Though I would say it's often easier for Australian half backs to fit in and play for Australia as I think the NRL teams play is more similar to each other than it is in SL.

The more I see Tomkins play for Wigan nowadays, the more he seems to be starting to look like a player who doesn't just thrive from having space as a fullback, but also can create that space with his elusive capabilities. Thus the more he plays, the more he looks like a stand-off and not a fullback to me.



For me, we need something special to stop falling embarrassingly short at the international level. We need the four most explosive players in Super League. With this in mind as well as what I've already said regarding Tomkins, this leaves the pivots for England to be Lomax at fullback, Tomkins at 6 and Brough at 7 and Roby at 9. Each of those have the X-factor needed to defeat Australia.,

An "X" factor won't beat Australia without being part of a highly structured unit. The lack of ability to focus on each set of 6 and stay calm under pressure is what undid Sean Long at international level - one game in Sydney being the exception that proved the rule.



Tomkins aside none of those 4 players have an X Factor or anything else that Australia would be that worried about either TBH.

If (and it's a massive if) Tomkin plays at 6, Hardaker on form is different class to Lomax at 1.