Just got back, so here's my thoughts as to the lessons to be learned.

1. Game was again lost before KO. I've seen the same on previous deciders and so had my head in my hands. Oz run through their routines crisply and with purpose. England were just going through the motions and at times were shambolic - people (esp. Tomkins, dropping the ball - a portent for the match), at one stage they all bunched up without purpose and bizarrely Wilkins nearly fell into his team-mates. So, both players and coaches need to get their collective acts together and behave like professional sportsmen.

2. Sinfield was one of my men of the series for us and his workrate is great. But, his short kicking game on attack was disastrous all series and he lacks explosiveness for a stand off.

3. Following on from that, we've got to get Tomkins playing stand off. He's our most skillful and dangerous player on attack. He's not an international full-back though. He can't get anywhere near a high kick - 3 times in the first half tonight and once against NZ. I would say his performance under the high ball was the worst I have ever seen from a GB / England full back (and I've been watching since the '60s).

4. Graham was stand out. We fell apart when he went off second half and, I think, conceded 3 tries then. His work rate far outstrips the other big forwards and our pack looked a sorry state in that period when Oz upped it and won the match.

5. The above was odd as shortly before the England pack really got on top and looked like they had battered Oz into submission. Thing is they hang in and come back. We don't seem to be able to pace ourselves and then run our of steam. We fell apart with 20 to go, whereas there was a series a few years back when we were lasting 78 mins against a much better Oz team.

6. Rangi Chase was a pleasant little experiment but quite frankly we have better and he offers little at this level.

7. Heightington - ditto.

8. Thought JJB was very good when he was on during the series and Westwood put himself about well.

9. Thought the scoreline flattered us tonight - they almost had 4 tries first half and is bordered on a miracle that we went in 8-8.

10. Despite all the talk (and, to be fair, the execution against NZ), we panicked everytime we got a chance tonight and were woeful on attack.

Overall, we ain't any nearer to Oz and, in fact, are further behind than we were a few years back. We need to get Sam Burgess and another couple like him to replace Morley and Peacock when they hang up their boots. We need 2 centres and a wing man and a full back (Tomkins to stand off, please) and a scrum-half. Just then might we have a chance.

Agree with much of that. Tomkins must have touched the ball half a dozen times in attack. We have too few creative players as it is without excluding arguably our greatest attacking threat.

One particular bugbear of mine is when the likes of JJB, Morley etc have to fill in at dummy half which, in short, fecks up the gameplan up. It lead to incidents such as Ellis being left to kick on the last tackle and in particular JJB's inexplicable decision to pass on the blindside from dummy half on his own 10m (immediately after the Sinfield penalty?) that brought an inevitable knock on.

I think England throughout the 4Nations have been making excellent progress. We defended well on the whole and the pack worked brilliantly, for once our pack was on par with Australia and NZ.

But when we are in the opposition 20 we have no idea. Australia in that position equals a try or a continuation of pressure. We just mess up on the first or second tackle and let them off the hook. Sinfield was truly woeful tonight, absorbing all the attacking responsibility and showing his lack of creativity and vision by popping impossible lateral passes to players who had never been good options.

If England had Lockyer and Thurston in our halves, we'd have won the tournament. That is the challange for the World Cup, finding a half back combination.

I more or less agree - except I think in the recent past our pack have dominated Oz's on the whole - although Pietro C always saved the day for them. Big Sam was awesome for them tonight.

gotta agree with sinfields kicking game being awfull , but having said that you cant beat the best team in the world without a recognised scrum half

watched the game with bro and yes, Australia could have scored more.

England's structure was all over the place, looked a complete mess when attacking Australia. Sinfield Kicking game was awful tonight. His kicking game in general is not good enough!

The half back partnership of Sinfield and Chase doesnt work when utilising Sam Tomkins as an attacking fullback. If you watch how the plays were set up for Wigan under Maguire, Deacon/Leuluai/Finch pass the ball outwide using dummy runners to allow Sam to join the line at pace picking out gaps in the defensive line. These opportunites rarely present themselves for England which results in him hardly touching the ball in a decent attacking position.

Also he's usually much better under the high bomb, he should have done better under a couple today but in his defence I would say he was offered very little protection from other players putting pressure on the chasers who were closing down very quickly.

Looking at the Australians for a moment, it saddens me to see how the slick 'green machine' has fallen apart this last few years. At least when they used to beat us their play was efficient, clinical and stunning to watch. Now its generally a shambles.

What?

Some of the above I agree with, the biggest difference tonight was the finishing of sets - particularly the kicking.

However, I think Chase is a keeper who asks questions of defence and we had much more go forward when he was on and taking control. Look at the previous matches too, we just need a decent player to compliment him. Sam had a bit of a dodgy night, it happens. Ditto JJB who has been good enough in the previous matches. We do need some younger props/forwards as I think Morley and Peacock aren't able to keep up with the pace of the game after a while. I dont think Widdop is good enough either, we went backwards when he attempted to take control.

Overall I do think it's looking good, much improved over recent years. The potential is there, even Lockyer acknowledged as much post-match.

We were like rabbits in headlights sometimes with ball in hand. It was like panic stations whenever we gained any field position.

Neither our attack or defence looked structured in any way.

did we actually watch the same match ?

the aussies were well organised,efficient and stronger man for man in every position - as Carney said,the level of SL must improve in order to provide the competitiveness for places in the England team to have any chance of competing with clearly superior opposition

Saying that,I thought Jack Reed was great for the future of England RL and the English Man of the Series for me - on the down side,if Chase was MOS last season then the SL is truly in dire straits...

I agree but he plays them every week and so doesn't stand in awe of them as our players do, nor does he have the history with them that our players do.


Chase was chosen as MoS while playing at six, not seven. The bloke has had to take on a new role in his first international series. Had he had played at six with a seven alongside him who knows what he might have done? But Sinfield is not and never will be a six and I'm sick of thick coaches playing him there.

Which would come as no surprise to anyone who had suffered a McNamara "coached" team for three years.

Did we put any kind of move together across our backline last night? I can't honestly remember one - our attacking "strategy" seemed to involve getting quite near the Aussie line and hoping something might happen, rather than have any kind of plan to make something happen.