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.

IIRC

The first two tests in 86 were blowouts.

In 1988 we got stuffed in the second test.

1n 1990 and 92 we came closest, the iggest loss being 22-6 in the 1st test in Oz.

94 we lost the second test 38-8 and the third 23-4.

The 3rd test in 1990 at Elland Road was about 18 nil wasn't it? We were never in that game. Saturday was far more competitive.

As I remember ist was close for a while then Carl Gibson went off for treatment and I think ET scored in the corner on our left. That turned the game. I also remember it being wet that day? Once again we were the worse ball control team.

I guess I am looking back fondly, but 90 and 92 we were really in with a shout, and I still think we should have won the '95 WC. Obviously we didn't win in the end, which is I guess all you can really judge on.

2003 was the year the Aussies sent a reserve squad without the top half backs and they still beat us

This is really one of my bugbears.

Show me a link that describes the 2003 touring Australian team as their reserves.

They were the best team they could pick to represent their country at a given time. Of course players will be unavailable. Just like they are for any team in any competition at any time.

I also disagree with calling the 03 Roos reserves - or the Kiwis from 2 years ago. They sent what they considered the best sides available. The fact some players were injured or made themselves unavailable, or that they had the wrong coach was not GB's concern.

My point wasn't necessarily to deify Schofield/Hanley - more that if a side is getting a roll-on thru fast PTBs it is possible to do something about it - the right player getting to the attacker and ensuring there's plenty of wrestling before they hit the ground for instance, and in the last resort just give away a penalty.

The overall point is that SL players simply don't face the quality of attack Australia possess except when we play them. Hence we struggle to contain them.