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

I didn't assume that at all. And of course they kept using the kicking option when it worked.

Completely agree he and thurston had so much time and various options on every tackle in our half.
At one point it was as though they had 17 players on the field at the same time such were the over-laps and dummy runners in motion.

I actually thought that around 50-60 mins Australia looked to have really lost compsoure / ideas. they were throwing the ball left to right, and back with little or no stucture. Reminded me of leeds in headless chicken mode

Agreed

and the accidental injury to Shenton allowed them to refocus / regroup but we sadly seemd to do the opposite.

England's inability to hold a lead for any length of time really cost them in that department.

Couple of times they went in front only to then concede and be behind again the next five minutes, removing the opportunity to put more mental pressure on the Australians.

And is it just me, or did England's entire attacking and defensive structure fall apart around their ears when Roby came into the game, late in both halves?

We certainly didn't look as organised with him on the field.

NO its not just you...moving Sinfield away from the AHB was a disaster, What Smith should have done is send on a runner to kick the 2 halfbacks up the @rse

A few of England's supposed young "stars" had the deficiencies in their games cruelly exposed unfortunately. Whether they have the drive and enthusiasm to correct those deficiencies now they have "made it" will decide whether they become great players or simply good ones.