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.

Eastmond and Tomkins are both very promising young players but they are too similar IMO, both good at running with ball in hand but no organisation, poor kicking, when they did kick it was down Slater's throat, too many occasions on the last play where neither took control and the likes of Peacock and Burgess were ending up with the ball. Only one should play with a half back who can control a game until they prove they can do it for there club. We looked clueless near the Aussie line and didn't really look like scoring points, the Aussies were clinical and the backs are just too good for us.
Tony Smith hasn't done the team any favours either by changing the team every week, how's a team supposed to settle when there's different players every game and then players will be thinking if they have a bad game they'll be out which is no good whatsoever. Look at the Aussies, they keep almost the same team every game, maybe a change or two in the forwards but that's it. England need to pick a team and stick with it. Good ridance Tony Smith.

Not disagreeing with the gist of the post, but I find it interesting how the poor kicking game is being attributed soley to the halves. Sinfield's kicking was equally poor last night (I would say worse, but I'll be accused of having an 'agenda'! ) and, given it was generally regarded to be his area of excellence and responsibilty, surely that was where the kicking game really fell down?

NSW have been beaten by Qld with basically the same set of backs as Australia have, but have rarely been hammered. The reason is that their pack is better at defending out wide, their outside men are way way better than Englands, they are smarter at using attack as a form of defence, and know that just after Qld score is the time to up your own game, not drop a gear.

England's pack played well whilst the game was tight. Well done. However, unless for some reason Australia play ball and keep it tight, we will always struggle. Individually our forwards are pretty good, except in possibly the most important position of all, hooker. They - and the backs - do not face the quality of attack Australia has. Ever. As a result they struggle when they do.

I still say get some of our kids out there to learn. If you genuinely want England to have any chance at all of competing we could go far worse than have the likes of Eadtmond and Tomkins go to Australia and learn how to play. Similarly, whilst Hall and Shenton didn't look out of their depth, and personally I think Fox could be a very reasonable winger, we have played an entire series without a genuine right centre, and another snail at full back. But even if we had 'better' players in those positions we'd still sturggle if Australia move the ball around because we just don't see that quality of play in SL.

I do hope all those who bang on about how important it is to have a good defensive fullback have a look at Slater's performances in this series. He's a joy to watch and so unbelievably far ahead of any English player its not funny. Similarly we had Greg Inglis - also right up there with the best centres you'll ever see - up against two makeweights. Its not fair to blame Smith or Bridge individually when what they've been exposed to simply highlights the gulf in class between NRL and SL.

I'm a bit disappointed by the club v club bickering that's going on, but not surprised. I thought the players we put out on the pitch performed admirably and gave it their best shot. The forwards genuinely at least matched the Aussies in that first 60 minutes. Once the game stretched in the closing stages our backs and halves toiled manfully but simply couldn't live with their opposites. Specifically the combinations of Lockyer, Thurston, Inglis and Slater were unstoppable, enabled by the superb platform Cameron Smith built for them. It doesn't matter which English backs you pick, we just don't have strike players to match that Ausie back line. They were too good for our lads, some of whom I thought did OK. Criticising the players we had out there isn't the answer, the trouble is that our best and Australia's best in those positions are a million miles apart. It's tempting to say that these are just freaks and one-off talents, but they're not. There were others before them (Gasnier for example) and there'll be others after them. We need to find a way to produce players of that quality, or we won't close that gap and the good work of our forwards will be in vain.

That said, I think the likes of Burgess, Eastmond, Tomkins, Fox and Hall are young lads who looked like they have the tools to do well at that level, the question is, can they be developed properly in this country and become consistently good players at that level?

The centres are our biggest concern. No disrespect to Shenton, who can be fairly proud of his efforts, but as a strike weapon, I'm not sure where that danger comes from. There's a pick list of speed, power, guile, handling/passing that you want from a centre at that level. Inglis has the lot, you at least need to do 2 or 3 really well. What players do England have who ansewr that description?

You also make a massive assumption that the attacking option they used was their only option - they used the kicking option because it kept working - simple really.

The last 20 minutes was some of the best rugby I have seen live since the first 20 in 2004. Lockyear stepped up the gas and the rest is history.

It reminded me of the 2007 GF - where Saints hung on for 50 minutes until the floodgates opened and the best side simply destroyed their opponents

Your last paragraph say it all - without strike centres where is the threat coming from? I have had this debate with Gareth we will not trouble the Aussies until we can produce two high quality centres