Seemingly, if the excellent effort against the Aussies is any sort of a benchmark.

Who'da thunk it?

Yeah, who would have thought a professional coach could take what is supposed to be the best players in the country and turn out a loss like that?

Excellent effort? What were you watching, they were hopeless.
Pathetic and mentally weak like everyteam and squad compilled by McNamara.

I think a fairer analysis is somewhere between FA's and Mick's opinions.

I thought England started well but lacked a killer instinct. I also thought McNamara went into the game with a bench that was too lightweight. That cost us.

I think we also need to be wary of making judgements based on single performances, the really important game is next week.

Yes, unconvincing wins over weaker sides. Followed by a hammering at home to a decent oufit who lost their best player after a few minutes. Macnamara at his finest.

Poor effort FA. Your standards a slipping.

And you really call somebody else that? Think somebody needs to take a look a little closer to home.

Nobbys quote off the Beeb RL site

"The referee's decisions weren't in England's control. They will be talking about the things that were in their control. At times they lost the ball on the floor and at times they missed tackles on the fringes. Absolutely those two decisions could have changed the game, however England have got a whole lot more improvement that they can take care of themselves for next week against New Zealand

Well summed up!

Well summed up and total fantasy the tram were pants yep the decision went against them for the try but thats how it is sometimes, the high tackle was not a sending off IMHO I do think he hit the arm first.

No godd trying to gloss over a team that was poor with refs decisions. too many passengers for my liking.

Wait til he's been in charge 4 years we'll be getting stuffed by Canada.

Seriously, the performance was very reminiscent of his Bulls career. A decent effort in the forwards, the backline (one big quality winger apart) not quite good enough and centres badly misreading or not strong enough in defence. Added to this a couple of very poor decisions from the ref at crucial times.

Physically we can match them, apart from Wilkin who offers zilch in that department & JJB who, though he would run 100mph into a brick wall, is simply not big enough. WHen Graham & Ellis did not return they were the subs. We lost it psychologically, MacNamara letting SHeens whinge on all week about the reffing which had an effect on the ref, Briscoe not having the self belief to go for the corner, & generally not having the killer instinct or belief we can finish them off.

Rangi Chase making sloppy school boy errors didn't help either. That cost us 12 points.

Despite a couple of brain farts I thought Chase looked a threat when he ran the ball. I also thought that we'd have been a lot closer had we not suffered three injuries to our best forwards.

Agree re Wilkin and JJB. Unfortunately McNamara didn't think we were too lightweight on the bench and we paid for that. Hopefully we'll have more size for the NZ game.

At least he played all of the bench, that's a novelty for Macnamara.

But we weren't too lightweight on the bench unless you could anticipate that all of Ellis, Graham and Peacock would be injured.

Chase often looked good against the best team in the world. Too many times our scrum half has gone walkabout against the Aussies, not Chase. Credit to McNamara for picking him.

We heard on the VT how crap Tomkins would be and how the Aussies would smash him etc., but he looked every inch the part, and came up with some quite outstanding plays. Credit to McNamara for playing bhim at FB, and the game plan that let him chime into the line to some devastating effect. (Also for the Reed/Hall combination which was superb).


Indeed, and credit to the team selection and tactics for that fact. Even Inglis was (again) not allowed to do much.


It did. Not sure how Mac "let" him do it - what do you suggest, he should have taken a contract out on him? 4.771484375:5