I don't think you're much of a poster either.

You must have been watching a different game, or wearing those Wakey tinted spectacles. One of the only England players trying to make things happen.

Started brightly but unfortunate that a couple of his mistakes ( and poor defence by others)led to Australian tries.

Thought Rangi did well in defence on the whole,and it needed to be out on Briscoe's side as he seem to be dragged in field a fair bit.

We could argue all night about whether Rangi should or shouldn't have played or even if he is worth a place next week, to me the simple fact is whoever plays next week we won't be as organised in attack close to the line as the Australians.

Look at the starting line up...Slater,Boyd,Inglis,Lockyer and Thurston (with Cronk off the bench) all have had hundreds of hours fine tuning attacking options in Queensland and Australian training camps. All know exactly where to run,the angle of that run all done at speed with precise handling skills.

In the N.R.L the majority of tries are created by skills (mostly basic) while in Super League most is created by poor tackling or lack of fitness from the defensive side .

He's a Kiwi

So what?

I wish our fans would just get over it. Anybody would think you're all happy sitting, whinging about mediocre...sorry, diabolical dross on a regular basis.

As for the performance today, made some errors but club rugby tactics aren't going to work at international level and you're going to get burnt if they don't come off. But on the whole, once again one of our better players. We're really lacking some big centres and a couple of big second rowers.

The team on the whole did OK. What could have made the difference would have been an agressive hooker and a couple of decent half-backs.

We have a decent half-back by the name of Rangi Chase. The Australian/New Zealand forwards are just more aggressive and stronger than ours - that's the difference.

Thurston and Lockyer weren't even that noticeable in the first 20 minutes.

Like the unwashed know anything about rugby league , i mean 'go korki' says it all really pmsl

I thought Rangi had a lively first 20 and helped put England on the front foot; following that though, he was awful - poor decision making and poor execution that led to two of their tries and ultimately, changed the tempo of the game.

Thus far, for me, his selection has not justified the hype and controversy that came with it.

I never saw any hype about Rangi playing for England; only a lot of whinging from 'England' fans.

I thought he played well for the first 10-20- mins of the game and created some gaps but after that he was poor and cost us a bit with his decision making. For me no matter how good hes been for cas he shouldnt be in an england shirt regardless of the residency rules, i think the only way you should qualify for a country is by being born there or by having a parent born there. Also had rangi lived here most of his life then i wouldnt have a problem with him representing england. But theres nowt we can do about it now cos hes been picked and he wont get dropped because that would mean that picking him had been a failure and they wont want people thinking that.

Isnt that what hes there to do,hes a half back.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present a lesson in the noble art of how to contradict yourself in the same sentence. The residency rules allow him to be picked. End of. It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks. What's the point of bleating about it?

I didn't see him playing against Wales yesterday. Neither did he look like a nocturnal, New Zealand flightless bird. Not really sure what you mean. Would you like to explain further?