The ref's made a few iffy calls, but we're still in it and Australia haven't looked overly good.

What's bloody annoying is that when Charnley was judged to have skimmed the whitewash (following which came the convict 4th try), the ref didn't even consider the video ref (which, from subsequent views, would likely have gone Charnley's way). Yet, when the convicts knock the ball on near our line (knocked dead) the ref goes to the vid ref to see how it should be restarted.

Ominous now, the convicts made far too many easy yards that post-pen set.

Familiar story of England putting up a valiant but ultimately futile fight, coming up short due to a combination of a few moments of Australian class coupled with almost all the 50:50 decisions going against them.



PS - it'd be typical of my luck for the convicts to win by 12 points - worst of both worlds: England lose but not by enough to win my bet

Aaarrgghh! Why didn't Charnley go under the posts; surely he could have beaten an Aussie hopping on one leg!

Same old same old for me. Australia trying to do their bit by not having a warm up game and easing themselves in, which made England look like they were competitive. Ultimately though, the Aussies could score whenever they needed to, nothing has changed.

The officiting annoyed me, which it always does in internationals. The NZ and Aus referees act like they are trying to bend over backwards to ensure they don't attract any potentially career-damaging criticism from the Australian officials and players and the English officials overcompensate by simply making things up to placate the Aussies. The foot in touch decision against Charnley was scandalous, firstly from the touch judge to give it when he simply didn't touch the white line, and from the referee who had no interest in going upstairs to get the call right. There were tons of little things he gave the Aussies the benefit from all game long, forward passes particularly, he had no interest in calling any of them.

As for England, the Burgess brothers have improved us, but still way off the pace ultimately. Westwood was appalling all game, a total liability who should be dropped. Ferres went well.

Whilst I agree it's 50/50 that Charnley was out. It should not be that close. He had 3 or 4 footsteps right on the margin.

He was far too slow chasing the kick so it then became panic stations when he eventually got to the ball.

Took a nice chance for his try but really was in my bottom set of players.

I don't understand why so many of our players go into their shells when we play the Aussies.

I thought we did ok but it was clear the Aussies have more quality all over the pitch compared to us.

We will go out in the semis.

Scores on the doors out of 10:

Tomkins - 8
Charnley - 5
Watkins - 7
Cudjoe - 6
Hall - 6
Chase - 5
Sinfield - 6
Hill - 5
Roby - 6.5
G Burgess - 8
Ferres - 6.5
Westwood - 6.5
S Burgess - 7

Mossop - 5
T Burgess - 7
Ablett - 5
Widdop - 4

From the Australians, I thought Morris, Boyd, Cronk, Scott, Smith, Tamou, Fifita, Lewis & Parker were all only 5/6 out of 10, very ordinary. The difference today was simply down to Thurston & Slater.

Took a point off Cudjoe for making a mistake in 2 of the Aus tries.

Tomkins was a constant threat IMO, and the Australians always had to make sure he was covered. He also put in a huge shift.

Whilst Hill did little wrong, he looked totally outclassed and didn't offer anything but simple (and easy to defend) drives in, and fairly solid defence. Perhaps I'm unfairly comparing him with the impact that Graham would have had.

I thought Hill played pretty well.

I thought Hill was superb with George Burgess at the beginning of the game, then when Tom Burgess came on and made 2 errors we seemed to lose it a bit. However it's unfair blaming the shift in the game on him.