No we didn't,the Aussies stepped up a gear identified where the gaps were and exploited it to perfection.
Every time Thurston or Lockyer had the ball they had dummy runners and passing/kicking options on both sides which England couldn't handle.
ATEOD we weren't good enough but they didn't just "give up".

This was the gameplan. The ball was driven up the middle to great success. The halves were given all the time they needed to position themselves and take control of the 5th tackle plays. They didn't.

I am finding this on-going "love-in" between Stains and Goons regarding Eastmond and Tomkins rather hilarious. At best the third ranked English half back pairing in SL.

Who conveniently happens to be a Saints player, amazing! You're quick to make excuses for him, which you weren't for McGuire, yet criticised those who did. Even McGuire put in at least ONE good kick against the Aussies.

Oh, here we go. Petty club bollox again.

And where was your golden boot boy nominee? Those amazing kicks and all that incredible on the park organisation? Hmm. Let's think ...

(Notice: I didn't bring up club issues, you did)

Eastmond and Tomkins have now played against the Aussies twice (or one and a half times in Eastmond's case). I think they both worked hard but last night clearly overwhelmed them. That was the risk with playing youngsters in those positions. However, what that experience will have done for their future is anyone's guess. By next year they will both know exactly what they are up against and will either develop into two very skillful players or they won't. Time will tell.

And no, I don't think they got a lot of ball. Look at the Burgess example. There was Tomkins, on his shoulder. What did he do? He tried for glory a second time when Tomkins was in had he actually been given the ball. I was at that end of the pitch, it was a glorious opportunity missed.

McGuire is an experienced international player. He should be putting in lots of good kicks! He should be whipping the Aussies!

Experience is irrelevant. We were told by someone on here, can't remember who, that Tomkins is 3 times the player McGuire is. They've both been picked on merit so it's up to them to perform, not hide behind the inexperience excuse.

Well, it wasn't me.

But I do know that experience is hugely significant and to say otherwise is, frankly, silly. Why not play our academy lads in the first grade Grand Final? Because they need experience of first grade before they can hope to handle the pressure and intensity of a final.

With more experience and, hopefully, sound coaching, Tomkins and Eastmond could become a brilliant halfback partnership. But Eastmond had only played I think 6 matches at scrum half for Saints before these international matches and Tomkins has not played many more. We asked an awful lot of them against the best in the world and I think that it would be churlish of you not to recognise the tremendous effort both these young guys put into what are key positions under such pressure at such an early stage in their professional careers.

England were leading 16-14 yet the same problems being mentioned here were still evident.

I doubt the issues would have been raised had England won.

I do recognise their effort, they gave everything they had, as did every player. But an awful lot of people wanted them on the field (whether that be you or not) at the expense of McGuire, but when it doesn't go to plan (and it would have been the same story whoever we put on the field) then inexperience is used as a get out clause.

The Aussies were simply outstanding

Yes we had them rocking for a little bit but their class was outstading and their PTB speed was something else, as for Billy Slater and Inglis, wow


if Melbourne bring a full strength side over in Feb, oh dear...

We had them rocking and didn't put enough points on the board. Or even put them under real sustained pressure. They had us rocking and put 30 points on the board. To compete for 60 mins was great but they were always going to have a purple patch and how that was handled would be telling. And it was. There were still some encouraging signs and they need building on rather than trying to find scapegoats.

Once again we let ourselves down by making mistakes and not taking our chances. Burgess (who was outstanding) should be given a right rollocking for not passing to Tompkins just after we scored the first try and Grahams interception ball was awful. Those 2 incidents were key IMO.

Australia were like a Anaconda, they slowly squeezed the life out of England before chewing them up and spitting them out.

Some of the play in the last 20 was sensational, the backline almost unplayable - mind you having Bridge and Fox together was a tactical shambles.

Thought Fox did ok but haven't watched it again yet.
Who would you have played?