Loads of people have been saying we should drop him but he always seems to go a good job. I've actively watched him to make sure I'm not missing something but he always seems to run the ball in hard and effectively, plus his tackling is very good (anyone who disagrees think back to when the NZ loose forward was bursting over the line in the game today and keith tackled him ball and all and took him backwards one on one). We need to differentiate between the players who are old and the players who are past it. Wellens is past it, Senior is just old.

Hes 'good' like you said but good will never win us anything, just look at the aussie centres and you get what i mean

I cant think of anyone to automatically replace him but senior (and to a lesser extend gleeson) both are there due to any real pressure for their places

Exactly, there's no point picking out players and saying they're not good enough to play at international level, if they're one of the best 17 available English players then they will play for England, whether they're world class or mediocre.

thought senior was actually one of our better performers...

He's a star

senior was one of our better players in the last too games for sure, so was gleeson for that matter unlike others

purdem was not up to the job, made 3 errors last night that sinfield would never have made, the first goal kick, the kick out on the full and the school boy knock on when we needed to score at the end, not a lot of errors but in big games this really matters,

purdem has never had big game time, fact..... his biggest game of the year is home to the dragons with a nice end of season holiday whilist the big guns play in the big games.

wellens and gardener were shocking full stop. wellens is done at this level

the fact the callders was for sale and leeds, bradford, siants and the wire didnt even think about him says it all, not to mention wigan wanted rid.

i would have played JJB and smith instead of wilkin and callders, but thats just me.

Purdham may not be an international class 13, if anything he is a decent SL-level second row, but he was a much, much better option than Sinfield last night. It was the first game of the tournament where we had ideas, and looked organised, in attack: Without Sinfield, England finally played a half back combination that worked as a unit. Contrast that to the games where Sinfield was on the pitch, where he sucked in the first or second receiver ball far too often, and his lack of forward momentum or creativity stifled our three-quarter play. Sinfield is an average 5/8th, and to play him at 13 deadens the side. Purdham made too many errors, but structurally it was far and away the right decision to play him.

far point and i dont disagree, i just felt the purdem made errors that have no place at this level, i have no doubt in those positions sinfield would have done better. the buck stops with purdem when he is restart and goal kicker.

Unless Sinfield picks the team you can hardly blame him for Smith not selecting McGuire and Burrow at 6 & 7 until yesterday. In all 3 games prior Smith has never once thought it might be useful to see how the club combination of Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow would work together. It was also the first game so far where we had both hookers in the 17 which quite frankly was astonishing. For me it was the biggest no-brainer imaginable.
Howwever, I think Purdham deserved his place in the 17, he certainly offered more than Hock or Wilkin have so far.

Senior gets stick because he's knocking on a bit, once you get "old" you become an easy target.