By the period Wilkin came on there were gaps all over the England defence - could hardly blame Wilkin for that.

He obviously made no effort to plug them judging by the pristine condition of his shirt.

Maybe as part of the process of how the game is run over here, have a look at how our games are refereed ?

Given the speed of the PTBs last night and given how some referees are more than happy (usually in games where there is a significant difference in talent of the two sides) to allow the vast amount of slowing down, gamesmanship and general spoiling tactics that is prevalent in our domestic competitions.

I'd agree with this, but we have been complaining about how the Aussies slow the PTB to a virtual standstill, while at the same time we were having 25 penalties for holding down every match to get a quick PTB. Now we change things a bit to slow it down, they speed it up a bit and we still don't adapt as well as they do.
If it's quick then we can't adapt, if it's slow then we can't adapt. The reverse is true for the Australians. We balme the refs, but do the refs really only interpret things the way the Australinas want? Or are we just mentally not smart enough to adapt to a halfway house at international level?

I don't think the play the ball is the issue. Slow or fast it's what the Aussies do with it from hooker that we can't cope with. The speed the ball passes along their line is phenomenal and we simply can't match that. Every time it passed out wide last night we looked vulnerable but luckily on a number of occasions the Aussies messed it up or we put in a great desperation tackle but that can only work for so long as shown...

Certainly Smith's use of the subs was very strange. Wilkin should have been on for a lot longer and Graham who put in a big early effort should have had a longer rest as he looked knackered later on. We dominated until Roby came on when we seemed to lose some momentum and direction. How long were Crabtree and Morley on in the 2nd half?

When Shenton had to go off, I would have moved Eastmond to and Sinfield to SO. Our forwards were looking tired at that stage and we needed to try something different on attack to give our forwards a rest. Sinfield could have given Eastmond some long passes to get him into space.

Had Burgess passed to Tomkins we would have gone 12 points up. As it was, a tired Graham pass took them to the other end and it was 6 each. Key moment. However have to forgive Burgess as the rest of his game was so good.

Also our half backs were not getting into position to share the kicking duties. We did not put them under pressure with our kicking apart from the Fox try.

However the scoreline did not do justice to our efforts but we have to give credit to the Kangaroos for some superb finishing - difficult to defend against those kicks and the ball did run for them.

Let's just imagine for a second that the likes of Schofiled or Hanley had been out there. They would have read the game well enough to ensure that if a set of 6 was 'going too fast' it was slowed - illegally if necessary.

The point about England failing to adapt is a good one and a recurring problem. Phil Gould commented a few years ago that GB were dreadfully slow in reacting as a unit - e.g. when they lose the ball in an attacking position they take in NRL terms an absolute age to mark up as a unit in defence. Compare to the speed with which Australia generally react to that sort of change and you'll see what I mean.

Personally I thought the difference in kicking game was immense. Lockyer was able to land the ball dead in goal from anywhere in our half.

we often just kicked dead to get territory, or a breather

The reason for the slowness to react is that in SL you don't need to react that quick.

I thought England did well for an hour and were in with a chance. The last 20mins things blew out a bit and I thought the players started to play catch up rugby far too early. The short kick offs were as good as try assists.

That's why we used to beat Australia in series that included the likes of Hanley and Schofield!!! They were no more successful at beating the Aussies in a series than we are now.

Also in their day there would never have been a set of 6 played at that speed?

But in 90, 92 and 94 we were rediculously close for the whole 3 matches. And we inflicted comprehensive defeats, and we weren't blown away once. In '95 England again defeated Australia and really should have won the WC final. So for me those teams with players like Schofield and Hanley were competitive and capable of beating the Aussies. We have been several steps behind that level since then.

Was it 2003 when GB came within about ten minutes of winning each of the three Tests in the series?

To say we have been several steps behind that level since 1994 is doing a disservice IMO.

The third test at Elland Road in 1990 was a bit of a blowout for the Aussies IIRC.

For all we look back with rose tinted glasses it smacks of romanticising English failures to hold the Hanley or Schofield teams at any higher standard than the current ones.

They didn't win whether they didn't win by 30 or 12 points.

It looked like it might rain.

He'd taken his bat home when he noticed cameras in the dressing room.