We had them rocking and didn't put enough points on the board. Or even put them under real sustained pressure. They had us rocking and put 30 points on the board. To compete for 60 mins was great but they were always going to have a purple patch and how that was handled would be telling. And it was. There were still some encouraging signs and they need building on rather than trying to find scapegoats.

Once again we let ourselves down by making mistakes and not taking our chances. Burgess (who was outstanding) should be given a right rollocking for not passing to Tompkins just after we scored the first try and Grahams interception ball was awful. Those 2 incidents were key IMO.

Australia were like a Anaconda, they slowly squeezed the life out of England before chewing them up and spitting them out.

Some of the play in the last 20 was sensational, the backline almost unplayable - mind you having Bridge and Fox together was a tactical shambles.

Thought Fox did ok but haven't watched it again yet.
Who would you have played?

Well, I know I haven't used inexperience as a get-out clause and I don't think I see anyone else doing it. I think everyone, no matter which their club, recognised the risk involved in putting Tomkins and Eastmond as a halfback partnership against Australia. However, most - including me - were happy to take that risk because McGuire hadn't worked. We had to try something and hopefully this experience will have taught both of them exactly what is expected at that level and they can then go on and achieve it. It would be fantastic if they turned out to be our thurston and lockyer, wouldn't it? (Not saying they will, but they might!)

It certainly would. I think that's what everyone wants to see. The benefit of throwing them in is that it accelerates their development IMO. They know what's required now and should be working harder than ever to get up to the required level. Eastmond in particular could be a very special player, hopefully we don't lose him to RU.

My point about experience was that you claim McGuire should have done better because of his experience, which is indirectly offering it up as an excuse for Tomkins and Eastmond. Everyone recognises that McGuire played poorly that day, he had an off day, but I think most people realise he's capable of much better.

We stuck in the game for 60 minutes but the Aussies always looked like they had another gear............which they used when our forwards were out on their feet.

I thought the collapse was shocking for an international side and showed once again we have progressed nowhere over the last 10 years.

Final note - Chris Bridge an international centre? Don't make me laugh!

You are putting words into my mouth here. And he didn't have an off day. He had at least two. We could not afford to play players out of form, not in the Four Nations. We were going to struggle as it was. Whether he had an off couple of matches or whether he is unable these days to step up internationally is moot. He wasn't performing well enough to stay in the team whereas Eastmond had impressed and so needed to be given his chance (with Tomkins, who was already playing).

So they played but were largely anonymous despite the pack playing well enough to set them a platform.

They needed some experience around them IMHO.

The injury to Shenton and the subsequent delay played into the Aussies allowing them to regroup reorganize and focus. It seemed to distract and drain us however.

Mcguire was in form and probably the form SO going into the 4 nations, but we went with two players not in the same form in their respective positions, one who had not played there for most of the season. Mcquire got hammered for his efforts not coming off but at least he was trying them unlike last nights pairing. On that reckoning last nights pair had 2 off games as neither dictated or tried to in the last 2 games. Eastmond had only inpressed as sub not as the HB.

Agree wholeheartedly.

We did our absolute best and clung in there but when they clicked on it was awesome to see.