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.

The Roses Origin Series would be a start.

Instead of attempting to be different, do what the Aussies do.

Rubbish Imports polluting Super League needs to stop too.

Been there, tried it, binned it because neither fans, coaches nor players bought into it as being anything other than a meaningless friendly.

The difference between Origin and Roses is that Origin pits world class players against each other. A Roses game would be no more intense or higher quality than Leeds-Wigan or Saints-Warrington.

Nah, not a red card. Careless, desperation tackle, but not intended to cause injury in my view. I am a little puzzled as to why yellow cards are not given out for the professional foul in those circumstances. Does anyone know what the rules are on that?

What do the Kiwis have - the Anzac test is mostly a very one sided affair - the only prep they have is the weekly grind of the NRL.

Any thought of an Origin type series is flawed, we are not interested as fans, we never were back in the 70s - look at the crowds?

We want our players to play less games not more - scrap millenium whatever, reduce the size of SL to 10 teams, strict limits on numbers of overseas players and most importantly do something about the quality of the coaching at elite junior level.

Only opinion but I felt that although Thurston could have hit harder, he certainly meant to hurt Hall. We needed an enforcer at that point, someone prepared to up the ante and really rattle the australians by fair means or foul.

True enough. Although the Kiwis don't travel well in recent years. Oddly, they are the opposite of England/GB, in that while we can only beat the Aussies when it is relatively un-important, the Kiwis seem to [ionly[/i be able to beat them in finals. Perhaps we need some of what they're drinking...



Well, I used to like them, but you are quite right. As I said in the post you quoted, it is not a plausible solution, unless you can solve the apathy problem.



Probably wouldn't do much to expose players to big matches, but I suppose they would be less well worn by autumn. There is an argument that it would avoid diluting the quality and make the matches more intense, but would the impact on income generation end up having the opposite effect?

You make some good points but would the crowds be better is the games were more competitive or if you had a 10 team SL they play each 3 times to get the 27 games? As to how you get the players used to the intesity required to play Australia I am not sure - perhaps if we had more players in the NRL they would realise these guys are human after all.

It's all very well saying reduce the SL to 10 teams but can those 10 teams afford to have fewer games? Personally I think 10 is too few, I can see aim is to increase the quality of games but even this year's top 8 play offs showed some embarrassing one sided scorelines so a 10 team league won't solve many problems.

The only way to improve things in RL is to improve them from the grassroots up. Get more people playing the game and better coaches and more players of a higher quality will come through. The more widespread the game the more money comes in through sponsorship. It'll take time and effort but there are no quick fixes.

I do believe you're right.

There are massive problems with both coaching and attitude at the junior amateur level over here. It seems to be more about winning each individual game than preparing the kids for the future.
Far too often do junior teams have one or two big, fast and hard kids that are simply used to use their size and strength to overpower smaller kids/teams. Rather than nurturing skills and team play, it's a case of 'give it to the big un'. The smaller, slower developing kids often end up packing the game in.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that rugby union amateur teams generally teach their kids skills to a much higher standard. I'll pretty much guarantee that if you did a test of skill ie passing the ball both ways, general handling skills - the union kids are better. However the league kids will be better at the physical side of the game - tackle busting, ball and all tackles etc