Chase went to McNamara, not the other way around.

What a surprise

Years ahead,,and they beat us without the best fullback on the planet...Phew...

Billy slater may have been missing but they had Darren Lockyer the best true loyal Australian half back in the world who does not have an Identity problem you cut him in half and hes green and gold all the way through. Its time the R F L reconised and develop true red and white and if you like blue. Sort it or you will always fail.

Consider yourself lucky. We had the Rangi Chase fan club behind us, doing their very best to confirm every worst prejudice ever written on these boards about the genteel country folk of Castleford.

Brian Carney is the best commentator on Sky and he always gives an informed & unbiased opinion.

Saying that I much prefer the BBC commentary !

One thing I hope results from last night is that Sky will stop trying to build all the hype surrounding certain players that they seem to favour.
As for the game itself, although we were in touching distance with 60 minutes gone we were lucky to be so and never really troubled Oz.
What really dissapointed me were the some of the shocking errors in our own 20 which came from just complete lack of concentration.

Australia were (and are) better than us in every department of the team - full back, three quarters, half back, front row, back row and bench, with the biggest differences in the half backs and three quarters (and full back last night). Even though we have some quality players in some positions - Graham, Roby, Peacock, Ellis, Hall, Tomkins (thought not last night), they have players who are at least as good, if not better. They did every facet of the game better than England last night - running, tackling, kicking, chasing, passing, ball movement, exit sets, applying pressure, creating chances etc. Only some good last-ditch defending to deny chances to Uate, Yow Yeh, Williams, and a very iffy video ref call to deny Lawrence a try meant that we were still in the game at half time - 8-6 flattered us! Australia could have run in 40-50 yesterday - they were that dominant - had Lockyer got the final kick, Lawrence's try being given and converted that's another 8 points just like that.

So, yet again, we are outplayed by Australia when it matters and we now have the inquest into why and what can we do to catch up. To misquote Sean Connery in the Untouchables: "Do we really want to catch up? What are we prepared to do?". Are we prepared to reduce the size of Super League to 12 or even 10? Are we prepared to play fewer games if that will help? To put proper measures in place to encourage or demand all clubs to nurture and promote young talent rather than imports (which franchising was supposed to do but hasn't) by doing something bold like reducing the salary cap but excluding Club Trained players from it? Will the powers that be force clubs to have the quota of Club Trained players which Harlequins, Huddersfield, Hull KR, Salford and Wakefield didn't meet last year (according to Rugby League World) as clubs are allowed to count 'Club Trained Whilst There' players - basically someone you signed whilst still academy age (e.g. Jay Pitts)? We shall see but I have my doubts.

Finally, the worst part of last night was the booing of Johnathan Thurston. His high tackle on Hall was not malicious and not a sending off offence and we got the penalty try for it. He is a great player, up there with the best scrum halves I have seen (along with Sterling and Johns) and in my opinion the best player in the world (although I'd have given Sam Thaiday last night's MOTM). It's a shame he isn't appreciated.

Agree with much of your post, and Thurston is indeed a very, very special talent, but I can't remember a game where a player guilty of a foul that leaves a player dazed on the ground or seriously injured hasn't been booed for most of the rest of the game. It adds enormously to the atmosphere and is a great part of the excitement of being in a large partisan crowd.
I was certainly a 'booer' when it happened, as were most of the people around me, but that didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of the extraordinary skill and quickness of mind he displayed for most of the game.

Same old story, until England have at least 12 world class players we will struggle to compete. We currenty have 6 or 7. Having said that I still think its as much a mental issue as a physical one. It seemed that whilst some of the players had that inner belief they could win it, but the majority didn't - hence there was some panic rugby at times it just wasn't needed.

It doesn't help that our own media/press put the Australian team on such a high pedastal either. Don't get me wrong, Lockyer has been a fantastic servant to the sport but could you see the Australian press gloryfying one of our retiring greats in such a manner?

I feel the only way England will be able to beat the Aussies would be to play a totally different game which the Australians are unaccustomed to. That would probably entail plenty of ball movement even in England's half, attempting 40/20's and chipping over the top of the defence. To try and compete player for player and employ the stereotyped game plan that is prevalent in this era of Rugby would not cause the Australians sufficient worry. They have to be taken out of their comfort zone defensively and by being surprised and unsure of what may be coming. Yes it would be a very chancy strategy but it may be worth a shot.

As a national team England/GB have suffered greatly from the professionalism of Rugby Union. This has meant losing that pipeline which attracted top level footballers and raw, talented individuals such as Martin Offiah who performed admirably for their country.

It's not a level playing field comparing in the two nations the level of athlete, standard of competition or size of the Sport culturally. Hence I believe that the only way to beat the Australians is to try a fresh approach.

If we can maintain the same levels of fitness I agree.

I remember in the eighties playing off the cuff caused the Aussies trouble and produced many fabulous tries, but their superior fitness and basics always ultimately triumphed.

I'm inclined to wonder if, perhaps, the Sky Sports idiots might have stumbled on something of merit amid their often bizarre ramblings (although I think it may have been Carney rather than the usual 3 Stooges). The Aussies seem to be better equipped for the big, big matches. How many of those Aussie players don't play Origin? Most of them have also probably played mid-season internationals against the Kiwis. What do we have to prepare our players for that situation. Some have some experience in Grand Finals, which is a similar intensity, but not all of them, and not 3 times a year. We need to address that IMO. No idea how. We could try to revive the Roses matches, but that will only work if it gets take seriously enough to produce a big match atmosphere. Which it probably wouldn't.

It's not just Origin and the trans-Tasman tests though El D, it's the intensity levels and standard of performance the players have to achieve week in, week out that prepares them for those sorts of games.

There's always some gun young kid coming through the system threatening to take your place if you don't perform to a high standard. Over here, you can clock off for ten minutes in half the games every year and it doesn't really make a difference.

English rugby league reminds me a lot of domestic cricket in the 80s and 90s. The club game is king, and there are a lot of players taking a good living out of the sport who have absolutely nothing to contribute to the success of the national side.

Some significant pruning needs to happen in SL, maybe even as far as a 10-team competition to ensure it remains an elite competition with only the very best players in it. Having the best playing regularly against the best might just increase intensity and breed some competition for places that is sadly missing at the moment.

I don't really accept the part of the argument that the NRL weekly rounds are equivalent in intensity to the big finals and rep games. The skill levels and athleticism on show are one thing, but that can be addressed through coaching and improvements to the way youth systems are resourced and structured. I was really thinking about the big-match element of these isolated games. What separates a SOO or test match or Grand Final from a weekly round is the overwhelming importance of the result. If you lose in the weekly rounds, there's (almost) always next week, and you can make up for the odd lost place in the play-offs.

I agree that we need to produce more quality players, but I still think it won't help entirely if we can't expose those players to the tension, atmosphere and intensity of those big matches.