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.