Mate it was inevitable Sini would burden the blame of any England short comings.

If England had won would there still be so many people talking about Sinfield, I wonder?

For me, he was one of the best players on the park. Cool headed and did his job well. We lost because of selection issues, silly mistakes, head high tackles, knock ons and general poor defense. Oh, and the alleged best player in SL dropping the high ball (why put someone who can't catch in at fullback? Anyone? Anyone?)

How can we watch all that and then go on to try and blame Sinfield or to suggest that if he hadn't of been playing we would have won?

For me, the problem lies in the coach. Once again, reputation picked the side. As an example, Lunt should have been there instead of Roby.

Let's be honest, McNamara, who failed with the Bulls, is hardly the best man for the job. Is it realistic to expect the national side to win anything with him in charge, or shall we just continue to moan about Sinny?

We lost by 8 points. I'm not blaming Tomkins for the loss, but a class fullback would have resulted in two of the Aussie tries not being scored. Not sure how that is Sinfields fault.

Quite so.
Seeing Tomkins drop it in heavy traffic early on I thought the Aussies would pressure him under more high ball after that.

It was, with 10 minutes to go I was thinking no doubt Sinfield will get bashed for this.

Sinfield was the lazy barsteward that strolled towards the 40/20 and blamed to linesman for his lazy ass work. That was a disgrace by Charnley, you're in a test match, get there asap and run the ball back as far up field as physically possible to help your team, no excuse for strolling back and Charnley got what he deserved.

Bang on.

The problem is if not McNamara, then who?

Any coach with any reasonable reputation is not going to put that rep on the line in a thankless job. When the only measure of success / failure is whether you beat a team that is lightyears ahead of you both on and off the pitch, you're not going to have a mountain of CVs.

Surprised that Ablett has got a bit of stick. Although not outstanding, he got through his work ok. The only blot on his copy book was the silly penalty he gave away, but far from the worst performer. I'd have him in over Cudjoe, who I think had little impact on the game.

Sinfield looked good, especially after watching the replay. I didn't realise how dominant Hill and George were in that first 20 minutes. for me, Tom and Mossop didn't bring anything from the bench, and that's when we lost momentum.

Add Graham into the mix, and possibly O'loughlin, and I think the england pack looks pretty impressive

Oh, I totally agree. Sadly, far better coaches than McNamara have tried and failed. Just look at Tony Smith, for example.

I think the real issue here is in us thinking that we can realistically compete with the Aussies. Let's compare...We have a game played by a few folk who live along the M62 corridor, while in Aus, RL is almost a national sport. It's hardly a level playing field.

What's more, and to make the job even harder, we decide to dilute our national GB team down even further into England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

I doubt even with Superman in charge, we could win this, or any other world cup.

Cudjoe was solid in defence and scored a well-taken try, like the other 3/4s had limited opportunities partly because of lack of ball, partly the ground conditions, partly because they were up against a pretty decent defence . Certainly wouldn't pick Cudjoe out as better or worse than the other 3/4s.

Ablett, like all the rest of the subs, had little impact. Would still have him on the bench because of utility value. In our strongest team Graham and O'Loughlin should come in for Mossop and Tom Burgess (Graham to start, Sam Burgess second row, Hill and Westwood or Ferres bench). Roby should play 80.

I was expecting worst stick about Ablett to be fair when he gave away that penalty due to his already unpopular status from other fans.. But at least his wasn't as frustratingly annoying or needless as some of the others, particularly Westwood's. We were falling back under the cosh again at the time and after seeing Tomkins out jumped for one high ball you can maybe see why he tried to help his FB out.

With Ablett though, my worry was that they'll play him on the right side and they did. Whether it be 2nd row or centre I think Ablett has always looked better on the left side.

For me, McNamara has to make a brave decision on Gareth Widdop - either he plays him from the start or not at all.

Widdop is wasted from the bench, especially if he is being used to spell Roby. It completely reshuffles the halves, puts Sinfield into a less effective position at hooker and gives Widdop himself little time to get into the game and make an impact.

For me, the bench on Saturday (discounting the drinking issue) should have been Graham, T Burgess, O'Loughlin/Ablett and then one of McIlorum or Burrow. The latter two act as a straight replacement for Roby, in different ways, should you want to spell Roby whilst Burrow also offers cover for the positions that Widdop is there to cover.

That means that one of Widdop or Chase misses out.

I think some of the post-mortem doom and gloomk I've read around the intertubes is a bit over the top. I'm not sure how many scapegoats we should be looking for. It wasn't a bad performance.

Even allowing for the Ockers being a bit rusty, I thought we stepped up a level from 2008 and 2010. Realistically we weeren't going to wake up on Saturday morning and suddenly be the best team in the world. We lost a bit of control of the ball and our discipline in the 20 minutes or so either side of half time. Must do better, but I don't think that's personnel. More composure.

For me, there are now 2 objectives, assuming the rest of the group games are largely uneventful:

1) Try to beat a very good New Zealand side in the semi final. This would be a huge step forward form the last 2 world cups. I think we'll need to improve a bit on Saturday's effort, but I think this, while a tough ask, is an achievable target.

2) Live with the Aussies and compete for 80 minutes. Avoid silly mistakes and cheap penalties, and ask a few questions with all in hand (which we did on Saturday). Don't be overly conservative, but try to execute things right. Put ourselves in a position where we could prosper from a couple of iffy decisions or a slice or two of luck. Realistically, that's what it would take.

Personnel wise, Tom Burgess looked raw and lacked composure, but he's a big unit. I'd leave him in for the next couple of games to get some game time. He'll be better for it.

When players are available I'd bring O'Loughlin in for Ablett (who didn't do a lot wrong, but I'd want O'Loughlin in if he's fit and I thought Westwood, whil up and down gave us more than he cost us, and Ferres had some good spells) and bring Graham in for Mossop.

I don't watch NRL so I've only seen Widdop in an England shirt. Been a bit underwhelmed. In any case I think it should be him or Chase, not both. McIlorum to come off the bench, or another forward.

I think I have to agree with most of that El Diablo. Widdop may be good ( I don't know enough about NRL so have only really seen his england performances) , but I do think he is shoehorned into the team. Its that balance of quality, and people playing the correct positions. I can't say that Chase has impressed me that much either, so I wouldn't be upset if he missed out.

Saw Nothing from Mossop of note, so for me he'd make way for Graham in some capacity.

I like the idea of Burrow coming off the bench for Roby. The only problem is who defends the middle in his place? Is that sinfield as he must be doing that under the current system anyway?

O'loughlin will be straight in for Sam Burgess for his suspension. I'd anticipate he'd keep his place ahead of Ablett injury permitting.

I actually thought for the first time, that the old addage about us matching them in the forwards was true on Saturday. In fact it wasn't true, our opening forwards battered them. I just think that the forwards off the bench let the standard slip. Add Graham and O'Loughlin into the squad with Burrow scampering away from a George burgess dent in the defensive line and I thnk we have a chance. Think the fiji game will be a good warm up for the Kiwis, as they certainly looked like they enjoyed hitting the Irish hard.

Fiji will be an interesting test.

They physically dominated the Irish and had a massive size advantage up front, but when the Irish started to give them a bit of niggle back they were very indisciplined.

Matched up against an England pack that is more their equal physically, it could get very tasty indeed.

Going forward, I'd be tempted to pair Widdop with Sinfield. Chase is in the side to supposedly provide the unexpected, the moment of flair, but even off the back of some decent ball on Saturday he did nothing but ship it on all the time.

Whether it's McNamara's gameplan or his own inexperience of the big occasion, he looked nervous to the point of scared stiff to try anything out of the ordinary. At least give Widdop 80 minutes to see what he brings to the party.

So Widdop for Chase, Graham for Mossop, O'Loughlin for Sam Burgess are the changes I would be making for Saturday. I just get the feeling from listening to McNamara pre-tournament though that he might use the Ireland game as an opportunity to get everyone in the squad involved.