Dunbar

So quality over quantity then.... good.

Can you did it out for us and link it?

Based on the 19, I am going to update my side to: 1. Jack Welsby 2. Dom Young 3. Harry Newman 4. Herbie Farnworth 5. Matty Ashton 6. George Williams 7. Harry Smith 8. Ethan Havard 9. Daryl Clark 10. Matty Lees Luke Thompson (suspended for the first game) 11. Junior Nsemba 12. Kai Pearce-Paul 13. Victor Radley 14. Mikey Lewis Danny Walker 15. Tom Burgess 16. Mike McMeeken 17. Morgan Knowles I do think Wane will pick Bateman though.

Just one specialist #9 named in the 19 man squad. Indicates that Wane is either going to go with Smith and Williams in the halves and Lewis on the bench or the likes of Radley to do a spell at 9. I hope it is the former. I think it is always a big call not to have a 9 on the bench.

Fisher-Harris is a good prop but he absolutely benefits from playing in the Penrith system who do the outside back carries and smothering defence better than any other NRL side. Add in tye Cleary game management and it is a dream of a team to play prop in. As I say, he is quality but next year will show how good he really is - personally I think Addin Fonua-Blake, Joseph Tapine and Payne Haas are better props.

Is this forum a lot less busy than it used to be?

Forwards and backs would work I suppose. You can't announce the 19 man squad by position if you are not announcing the team because by putting them in position you are announcing the team.

Out of interest, if you are OK with the game day teams not being named until close to kick off and a 19 man extended squad being announced, how would you present the squad if you are not using alphabetical order?

Based on how Wigan play and the quality of their players across the squad, I am going to say Will Warbrick. He has only played 49 games for the Storm but he will be the best winger in the world in the next year or so.

Why do you say that?

They could change what they always do by not doing what they always do and not change things.

Of course I am talking about teams that weren't in the Tri or Four Nations, that was the point of my post. I don't have to cherry pick a year, you name the year when we had a Tri or Four Nations and we can take a look to see if there was just as much or more international Rugby League played in 2024 compared to that year (I said just as much, you changed it to more). Here is the list of years: 1999 - Tri Nations 2004 - Tri Nations 2005 - Tri Nations 2006 - Tri Nations 2009 - Four Nations 2010 - Four Nations 2011 - Four Nations 2014 - Four Nations 2016 - Four Nations

The last Four Nations was in 2016. To be clear, you are stating that there was more international Rugby League games played in 2016 than there are in 2024? When I get a chance, I will take a look at the comparison.

I'm not convinced that criticism of the SH and NRL is valid here. This is the second year of the Pacific Championship and it is bigger and better than last year with a Championship and a Bowl for both men and women. I also saw some pretty decent discussion about towards the back end of the regular season. If I compare it to the time when we had tri series and four nations then we are seeing just as much international Rugby League. My worry is England are not in it, and SH teams prefer to be in it than come here, and the risk is that our international team will be isolated - but is that a problem the SH has to solve?

Looking forward to Sunday and we can start talking about the on field action. And that's not a critiscm of people discussing relevant topics, just can't wait to see England play again... Herbie Farnwoth in an England shirt again, Dom Young as well. Hopefully Nsemba making his debut etc etc.

This is one club that is perfect for the investment strategy. A guaranteed place in Super League, a large and passionate fan base and a great stadium. Spend to the cap, or beyond, bring in star players that the fans want to see and build momentum.

Isn't that the point of a wealthy backer though. A club extending itself to the limits of its finance (and here, actually beyond it) in order to secure promotion and the additional revenue stream that comes with it is a very risky strategy without someone willing to underwrite (or write off) such a cost if the strategy fails.

Last year Australia and New Zealand played Samoa in weeks 1 and 2 before playing each other in week 3 and then the final. There is an argument to say the schedule favours the Kiwis this year because if they beat Tonga in week 3 (irresepective of the result this week week) they will be in the final while the Kangaroos will have a weekend off in week 3. In this competition, I don't think the week off before the final is a benefit as momentum and continuity is a plus.

I do not.

I was using your post as a point of reference, not trying to counter it. Not everything has to be an argument.

Well the Rugby League World Champions are playing on Sunday but the fixture isn't on the BBC website. As well as all the other internationals happening across the men's and women's Pacific Championship.

Took me an embarrassingly long time to work out that your brother in law's Mrs and her family wasn't necessarily your sister and family. At least I didn't have to use a pen and paper.

That's a great turnout.

I think there is a sensible balance to be found. I think the marquee player rule is good, and allows clubs to be ambitious in signing world class talent, while the club trained dispensation is also important to continue to motivate clubs to develop home grown talent without fear of losing them. Although the latter is only fair when all Super League clubs are granted an Academy license.

So, an average spend of £2.4 million with a the base salary cap will remain at £2.1 million. So, plenty of use of the exemptions already in place. For reference, the fixed cap was introduced in 2002 at £1.8 million (before that is was a % of turnover). £1.8 million in 2002 equates to £3.24 million in 2024 according to the Bank of England inflation calculator.