We could have squad members from Canberra, St George, Catalans, Brisbane, Canterbury, NZ Warriors, Souths, Leeds, Wigan, Huddersfield, Warrington, Saints, Hull, Castleford - how many sets of club colours do you want?



Look at this side from the 2008 W/C semi to see how things have moved on:



England: Wellens (Saints), Gardner (Saints), Gleeson (Warr), Senior (Leeds), Calderwood (Leeds), McGuire (Leeds), Burrow (Leeds), Graham (Saints), Roby (Saints), Peacock (Leeds), Westwood (Warr), Ellis (Leeds), Purdham (London).

Replacements: Pryce (Saints), Morley (Warr), Higham (Warr), Wilkin (Saints).

Does it, why? The top teams usually have the better squad, the better first starting 13 and often a better coach not mention great academy structure to back up.

There were quite a few 'top' players from 'top' clubs that were average at best in the 2013 World Cup, Smith was goddam awful, Charnley was average yet got picked over Briscoe for the big games on the back of what? lockers was totally ineffective despite being bigged up against weaker opposition, Westerman performed far better yet got dropped and Lockers was a massive let down.

Even 'King Kev' wasn't all that except a few passes & fluffed up big time costing us the game in '13 when the pressure was on.

It's been the same old same old for years, top clubs so called top players not actually being able to produce at the top level yet still getting picked.

If Gale is considered to be one of the top half backs available and qualified to play for England, then the game in this country is shot at.



It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Danny Brough is considered to be in the mix













Anybody want to employ a crocked overseas 1/2 back anyone? Hull HR, Hull, Salford, Saints etc etc

not necessarily, the top "teams" are just that, Salford probably have better "players" than say, Castleford or Huddersfield, Warrington certainly do, but it doesn't make them a better team.

good individual players doesn't always equate to having the best teams.



the point is, that when it comes to England RL, players from the biggest and most successful clubs are automatically picked over players from lesser clubs, it's been that way as long as i can remember and ill continue to be.

This is a very good post. The spread of players in the mix is wider than any time in the SL era. It's also notable that we don't really have a SL side that stands out above all others at the moment. Any of the top six is capable of turning the others over on their day, whilst Leeds have been most consistent and have the best attack their ageing pack can fade a bit at times giving sides a chance to stretch them, Wigan don't seem to play with the same creativity they had a couple of years ago, Saints defence is shaky at times testing the mantra of "doesn't matter how many you score, we'll score more" to destruction and beyond, Hudds are technically very good but you always fear some of their big guns will go missing when it gets tough, Wire are a mixed bag look great sometimes totally unconvincing others, and Cas punch well above their weight as a team but lack that little bit of extra quality. It makes things interesting and it also means that some players stand out more than they would otherwise for good or for bad. So Watkins looks a country mile ahead of every other centre, whilst on the other side of the coin Smith at Wigan looks workmanlike rather than creative. I don't think the argument holds any longer that same old clubs dominate international selection, the dynamics have shifted.

Let's be honest though - the spread of players really does pale in comparison next to results.



I mean, if we take a pasting from the Aussies & Kiwis with an England team populated with players from every SL club - what does THAT say about our competition?

I think we've shown potential to close the gap in the last couple of years, it's been a mix of lack of depth and a lack of genuine international class in some positions. The NRL is a more physical competition than SL, has more consistency in its intensity and a greater depth to its player base. I think Super 8s is trying to address the first two by making the better sides play each other more often, but it doesn't address the size of player pool which is restricted by British RL's lack of geographic and financial clout. The upshot is that some of our top SL players probably lack the physical attributes to mix it with NRL standard equivalents week in week out. On the flipside there are players with good NRL pedigree who come to SL and don't particularly stand out because their physical capabilities have lesser weighting. Taking Luke Gale as an example, I've thought him a decent halfback since his time in London, and he seems to have matured as a player, but looking good against Saints patchy defence is a world away from an Aussie or Kiwi international defence where space is going to be much tighter. But having said that I'm not convinced we've got another NRL/international standard halfback to partner Widdop so as a form player he should be in with a shout.

Gale has delivered consistently this season whereas others haven't.



There's a reason he's Albert Goldthorpe Medal Winner this season. And the point about him being good against Saints' 'patchy' defence is hugely harsh and disrespectful. It would be the same for Matty Smith taking advantage of Salford's crap defence, or Wakefield's for instance. You can only play what is in front of you and if you are in good form and take team to pieces then you should be in the elite squad, no questions asked.



Incidentally, I'm pretty sure Gale was part of the side that took Leeds and Saints (both top of the league and in good form at the time) apart earlier in the year. He's proven he can do it in big games. What he's lacked at times is a strong supporting cast at Cas.

He does need to learn not to kick it out on the full at least once every game, though.

Bump.

very good tonight, outplayed both McGuire and Sinfield.



can't be far off the England 7 shirt