The only chance we have next week is if we play a "loose game".

We haven't got a hope if we play it tight and get into "an arm wrestle"

That means we have to rely on players with individual flair (Tomkins, Eastmond and Myler) and just hope it comes off.

We may get beat by a bucketload , but we mustn't come away from the game wondering what would have happened if the kids had played.

We got battered in Melbourne last year with an experienced side, so give the kids go.

I agree totally with that, playing it through the middle and trying to barnstorm over them will not work, as you say, the 2 half backs will have to have massive games to try and dictate and control the game, but that of course bears another question, are they good enough to do that?

IMO on paper our forwards are the best we have been able to offer for many years. Wether we have the skills to get the best out of them is a different matter.

Where we are at a serious disadvantage is in both Centre berths. We are massively weak here and this is where I feel we'll be most exploited by the skills of Australia and the power of New Zealand.

Kyle Eastmond must play and id play him at either Centre instead of Shenton or Full Back instead of Briscoe.

My team against Australia would be...

1.Briscoe
2. Briscoe
3. Smith
4. Eastmond
5. Hall
6. McGuire
7. Myler
8. Morley
9. Moore
10. Peacock
11. Ellis
12. Burgess
13. Wilkin

14. Roby
15. Graham
16. Carvell
17. Bridge

We'll get completely hammered if we play it loose and rely on flair. We haven't got the flair players to do it vs the Aussies. Look at Super League's top team: their most dangerous and skillful attacking players are Brent Webb and Ali Lauititi, neither of whom can get into the Kiwi squad, and that says it all.

If were relying on our backs and fare to win us the game we will get beat and beat heavily, we need our very good forward pack to try and get on top, just as the Kiwis did, throwing young kids in against a very good Aussie side could do more harm than good, we need some kind of big game experience in the halfs so McGuire has to start, whether Tomkins or Myler player along side him I'm unsure, Id even consider Sinfield at 6 and McGuire at 7

We don't have the skill to break down the aussies playing like that.

Trying to play llike that for us means silly offloads going to ground and australia punishing the mistakes.

We'd get mashed.

Noble had it right when he kept it tight in an arm wrestle. We had some great tussles and even beat the aussies a few times playing like that.

Why would anyone want to put Eastmond in front of Greg Inglis. Hell, Inglis was throwing players around for fun last night!


As for playing loose.....what? Really?


And to suggest Brian Noble had it right...please. You lot got destroyed when he was coaching too!

Rogues Gallery wrote

Rogue's Gallery is undoubtedly correct. Whilst we need our forwards to step up, playing EXTRA forwards in the backs will never work. An 'arm-wrestle' will result in a traditional close 60 minutes followed byt the Aussies running in 30 points at the back-end of the game. Our backs are clearly not as good as the Aus or Kiwi line-ups, but the only way to beat the Aussies is to spend at least 60% of the game in attack, depriving them of time in possession. Tough, it's true, but if you set out just to defend for 80 minutes you might as well not even turn up.

Oh my aching sides.

We'll be lucky to get 5%!!!

on 2nd thoughts your observation is correct regarding 60%

other way round for me. we have to try smother it and play to our strengths which is in the pack. try rattle em early, start like the kiwi's did and get in their faces. if we try out pass em on the fringes we'll get clobbered

seems a strange kind of logic, why not play 12 wingers and a hooker? or 13 props, or the under 11s maybe that will work?

why dont they all cover themselves in ice-cream, we musnt come away from this game wondering what would have happened if the ice-cream covered team had played

we got battered with in melbourne with a team not covered in ice-cream, so lets give Ice cream a go.