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.

But they didn't - they lost buy over 30 points - the gap in quality between the half backs was evident for all to see - the quality and accuracy of Lockyear and Thurston's kicking was something we can only but admire.

Indeed they did. Why on earth Smith insisted on shunting Sinfield away from the hooker position I have no idea. Does he not play full matches for Leeds or something? (That was sarcasm, btw) Sinfield should have remained at hooker throughout the match. He was supposed to be the organisation man, given the halfbacks' inexperience. Had he stayed in that role then Tomkins and Eastmond may have had more opportunity to do the business we much needed against the Aussies - kicking, jinking, generally making a first class pain of themselves to the convicts.

With a full season in the bag both Tomkins and Eastmond could be a real, effective and full on halfback pairing. They may not turn out that way, but they just as likely could. Either way, this experience will have done both of them the world of good.

They had a game plan that was incredibly simple and we didn't pick up on it. They had obviously noted the defensive positioning of our wingers and full back early in the tackle count near our line. Then they did something we find difficult to comprehend - they kicked early - 2nd or 3rd tackle. It was brilliantly executed, but we didn't pick up on it.
I actually don't remember them offloading the whole game. I was also sceptical the weather would help us. Bad weather usually benefits the best ball control team (always Australia), and our offloading game which caused them all sorts of problems in the previous game was negated.

I think we did take them by surprise a little with our ferocity up front early on, and if we had been able to kick better an maintain better field position our enthusiasm might have lasted the full 80 and seen us home. Poor kicking and poor organisation again let us down.

I thought that last nights scoreline didn't truly reflect how hard a contest it was for much of the game

People that take pleasure in pulling England to bits over last nights performance need to look at the quality that proved to be the deciding factor of the result more closely

Englands forwards equalled both the Aussie and the Kiwi pack's throughout the series, but we are sadly lacking the International quality backs
to cause them any problems out wide

This must have been a wonderful incentive to take into a test match, the fact that if you can contain everything that a side can possibly throw at you in the forwards but in the knowledge that their backline will not be able to trouble you out wide

How can any team defend for 80 minutes against super star players like Thurston, Lockyer, Inglis and Slater?

If you can, then i'd have thought that the coach of NSW would have worked out how to do it also in the games that count, because Queensland have put NSW to the sword in much the same way in recent years

Jarryd Hayne is a player that was voted the NRL player of the season, but he has hardly made an inpact throughout the whole series, Folau was also missing due to injury, sadly we don't have such luxuries

the list goes on

WC squad
Terry Campese (Canberra Raiders), Karmichael Hunt (Brisbane Broncos), Darren Lockyer (Brisbane Broncos, capt), Joel Monaghan (Canberra Raiders), Paul Gallen (Cronulla Sharks), Anthony Laffranchi (Gold Coast Titans), Scott Prince (Gold Coast Titans), Brent Kite, Josh Perry, Darius Boyd (Brisbane Broncos), Glenn Stewart, Anthony Watmough, David Williams (all Manly Sea Eagles), Michael Crocker, Israel Folau, Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith (all Melbourne Storm), Kurt Gidley (Newcastle Knights), Johnathan Thurston (North QLD Cowboys), Steve Price (NZ Warriors), Brent Tate (NZ Warriors), Petero Civoniceva (Penrith Panthers), Craig Fitzgibbon (Sydney Roosters).



some big names from that squad missing from the 4 nations squad who would waltz (no pun intended) into the england team, particularly the backs.

I assume they aren't all injured, just other players playing better.

Corect mate

We have proved that we can compete in the forwards, but your extended list further exposes our clear weaknesses in our backline

that list of aussie players from the world cup quite a few will be playing in the Wakey, Quins, Crusaders and Dragons colours in the next 10 years when there at the end of the playing years and that is where one of our problems lie

Just for all you 'experts' out there, Tim Sheens tried to sign Tomkins for Wests Tigers and had dinner with Bill Ashurst this week where he was (in Bill's own words) 'gushing' in his praise of him. Now let me see; Tim Sheens or a couple of internet warriors? Think I'll go with Sheens opinion, thanks. No offence.