While I don't particularly agree with the decision to pick a forward at stand off, I don't understand your logic with the comparison to Farrell and Sculthorpe - if they were better loose forwards than O'loughlin, why does that automatically make them better stand off's as well?

none of us have seen him play





he's a NO NAME AUSSIE...bradford ( any club) should'nt be wasting overseas quota spots and salary cap on NO NAME AUSSIES/kiwis.....!!!!







had you signed terry campese......i'd be over joyed

It doesn't automatically make them better SOs than O'Louglin, but IMHO they were both more creative LF's than O'Loughlin and were better equipped with the skills to make a go of that position than he is. In the case of Sculthorpe he was pretty much as good a SO as any specialist British SO in the period he played, hence why Saints used him there when needed, but he also just happened to be the closest thing we had to a genuine world class LF at his peak. I think O'Loughlin is a work horse, with a decent all round game except for his tendency to put in high shots, but he's not in the same class as either Farrell or Sculthorpe, and I'd rather we'd played someone with a genuine capacity to play SO than limit ourselves in this way. Widdop's main position is SO, Brown has played SO alongside Robinson regularly, and S Tomkins is a better SO than either of them, so it just feels wrong.

Fair comment. I actually think that O’loughlin is a more creative player than Farrell was, I think his distribution was a little laboured and a kicking game than wasn’t international class – in fact, Farrell was a much better running second row (later prop) than a loose forward



Agree with you about Sculthorpe though – he was all class and played superbly at stand off against the Aussies considering he was a career loose forward



On Sunday, I am sure we will see England playing a tight game through the middle with Robinson trying to boss the forwards and Roby & Lunt taking advantage of any go forward the forwards create. The backline certainly has some youth and pace about them but their main job will be defensive I think. It might work, it might not, we will wait and see

Awful decision.



We should scrap England and just send eligable Huddersfield Giants players.

Same. If Bradford want to pay for his rehabilitation and play him for a few games at the end of the season when he'll only be able to run in a straight line, we'll gladly take him back for 2012 when he's fully fit again. We demand a transfer fee though.

At least we can make a full team of them.

When s'ol came through at wigan, he took over the 13 shirt and covered 6 when needed, allowing Farrell to move forward and play what seemed to be the best rugby of his career.

I know Phil Clarke says it a lot so it gets laughed at because its coming from him but Lockers is one of (if not the best) passers in the league.

Lockers played at 6 against Hull KR in the play offs and everyone on the Wigan board was doubting him. They all came back after the game and said how wrong they were because frankly, he had a stormer.



His link up play is up there with the best in SL and Steve Mac will be thinking (IMO) if we get him the ball with the aussies on the back foot then Lockers linking with Sam in midfield will rip them to shreds.



I am a massive SOL fan but I do worry about his kicking game as it can be excellent to shocking in the space of minutes.

That would have to be the most positive quote I have seen in a long time regarding Englands ability.

I don't mean on the back foot in terms of the game.



I mean on the back foot on terms of us getting a quick PTB or half break and then capitalising...