I don't think many Bulls' fans would argue with that - how much better would the Bulls be with the three Burgesses in the squad?

Well, now the dust has settled, and McNamara has conclusively proved he can coach. He made tough and controversial decisions but the indisputable fact is that England were better than NZ; we had a game plan to win, we neutralized their main threats and, indisputably, were the better team on the day.

It was a heartbreaking way to exit but nobody can understate McNamara's performance in first, a highly competitive effort against the best team on the planet, and then the NZ effort. For the first time in a long time, sat watching the NZ game I felt that we were more than equal to them and had we not slipped up in the last second, then nobody could have begrudged what would have been a thoroughly deserved win.

I know the reason for the thread, but it must have been galling for the anti-McNamara trolls, who in truth know just how good we were, and will have been the only ones outside NZ cheering as the final play went down.

Well done McNamara and the team, we are out, but don't deserve to be, and did the country proud. Nobody could have done better.

exactly how I see it, well said FA.

Couldn't agree more!

If it wasn't for the Gurgess tackle at the end it would class as the best example of nullifying SBW I have witnessed.

I was actually really impressed with how Ferres stood up to SBW. Almost every SBW attack was met head on by Ferres, even in attack he ran hard and made pretty good meters. Was one of the best games I have seen him play.

I do disagree that the best team lost. These teams we're evenly matched. Both teams had chances to score but the game was equal, even until the last set of 6. There we're times when England we're in control, but there were also times when the NZ team kept us in our own half (1st quarter of the second half).

The England pack is probably the best on the international stage, but the backs are still a long way behind the AUS and NZ teams. Hall is probably the only player that you would pick above the competitors. Until we have stronger backs, we will always struggle to kill games off.

Backs? You can't have the best in every single position in the squad, but in Tomkins and Hall we have two of the very top echelon. And unless you count Hall failing to take the interception, I would say that the decisive moments in the game were the failure of Sinfield to kick for touch in the last minute, and coming out of the line for the try, plus of course the high shot by George Burgess. I thought our backs did better than NZ's. I thought that NZ considrably got the better end of the decisions in the game, particularly in the first hour, and of course the teams were evenly matched; it's what you want, but not what we've come to expect. A NZ world champ team, with SBW in it, and we think we are evenly matched. What else does McNamara have to do?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking Mcnamara. I am probably a doubter of his abilities, but the game was a classic. Probably the best game I have ever seen. It's just a shame there had to be a loser. When we we're on top in the first half, I think we needed to score more. We just can't seem to find the killer touch too often in 1 game.

If he does stay in his post as England coach, I expect to see a lot of changes for the future. Too many players let themselves down during this tournament. His leadership qualities are going to be tested further. Our backs do show potential, but they are not dangerous enough going forward, and they always look a little suspect when defending. It's a shame the likes of Atkins and Watkins aren't playing for NRL clubs, would do their game the world of good.

If I we're to judge Englands performance in the tournament as a whole, I'd have to say we played superb for 79 mins against NZ, we played well for 30 mins against Aus, but the victories against the 'lesser' nations were uninspiring. Still plenty of room for improvement.

The only thing I'd add is that no team plays top of its game all the time, not us, not Aus, nobody. The trick is to play really well when you really need to, make sure you do the business when you don't play well, and peak at the right time.

And one good sign of a good coach is to be the better team (or if you like, at least equal) despite, if you are right, having inferior backs.

Best post of the thread. The spin some are putting on two home defeats to Australia and New Zealand, despite England having a superior pack and clearly the best player of the tournament, is simply silly.

Yet they lost???



And you know this how, exactly? Nobody whatsoever?

Stop dressing up opinion as fact FA.

The problem is that there are some people on here that have been strangely off with their views, and, of course FA who was talking mince as usual. The usually sensible Bullseye is actually trying to suggest that home advantage does not make much difference FFS. What a lot of nonsense that is. How can playing at home NOT be an advantage? Your conditions, your crowd, your ability to set up the pitches how you want them to be.

FA, as usual, shows that despite his undeniable love of the game of RL, he still has learned nothing about it whatsoever. It was a failed competition for England RL, despite the wealth of talent they had available and no FA spin will paper over the cracks.

In fairness, I bet there were a few Aussies that were ing themselves too.

What, you are SUCH a dolt that you think "Nobody could have done better" is a claim of FACT?



OMFG. Your skull would give a neutron star a good run for thickness. FACT.

Er, whose post contained the terms 'conclusively', 'indisputable fact', 'indisputably'?