McGuire is an experienced international player. He should be putting in lots of good kicks! He should be whipping the Aussies!

Experience is irrelevant. We were told by someone on here, can't remember who, that Tomkins is 3 times the player McGuire is. They've both been picked on merit so it's up to them to perform, not hide behind the inexperience excuse.

You mentioned the half backs, I commented on their performance and the fact that club loyalties are preventing people giving a realistic assessment of how they actually performed. That's my opinion.

Do you want me to dig up some of the vast quantity of "petty club bollox" you posted on the McGuire thread, to name but one?

Well, it wasn't me.

But I do know that experience is hugely significant and to say otherwise is, frankly, silly. Why not play our academy lads in the first grade Grand Final? Because they need experience of first grade before they can hope to handle the pressure and intensity of a final.

With more experience and, hopefully, sound coaching, Tomkins and Eastmond could become a brilliant halfback partnership. But Eastmond had only played I think 6 matches at scrum half for Saints before these international matches and Tomkins has not played many more. We asked an awful lot of them against the best in the world and I think that it would be churlish of you not to recognise the tremendous effort both these young guys put into what are key positions under such pressure at such an early stage in their professional careers.

England were leading 16-14 yet the same problems being mentioned here were still evident.

I doubt the issues would have been raised had England won.

I do recognise their effort, they gave everything they had, as did every player. But an awful lot of people wanted them on the field (whether that be you or not) at the expense of McGuire, but when it doesn't go to plan (and it would have been the same story whoever we put on the field) then inexperience is used as a get out clause.

The Aussies were simply outstanding

Yes we had them rocking for a little bit but their class was outstading and their PTB speed was something else, as for Billy Slater and Inglis, wow




if Melbourne bring a full strength side over in Feb, oh dear...

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!)