As I said before its not about Sinfield its about the whole squad.

To suggest your views are valid because we haven't beat the Aussies in a while is bizarre. Take Sinfield out and replace him with any of our other world class half backs and you think we'd beat 'em regularly? Replace him with Thurston and you think we'd beat them regularly? Your view is wholly invalid and frankly ridiculous.

its not that your views are against the grain, it's that they are demonstrably nonsense. Sinfield is an international standard half back. You know how I know that as a fact? Because he is playing international football, at the highest level for a major nation. He is doing it regularly and with some success.

The fact you have decided on some quite nonsensical criteria to define 'international standard' is neither here nor there because by your criteria no English players are 'international standard' SBW isn't an international standard 2nd Rower and there has been less than 30 'international standard' players in the game who weren't wearing green and gold since 1972

I'm just not a fan of Westwood at all.

He reminds me a bit of Kirk Yeaman who was made to look good by Paul Cooke and then when he left Hull Yeamans career never really sore to the heights it once promised. For me Westwood needs Briers and looks lost without him. If he didn't give away so many penalties his work rate could be enough to see him in the England side but for me its not enough.

The current fixation with Australia is irrational. NZ have a better team - it's theirs to lose.

Your right to mention the above. We have had problems with Perenara in the past as you rightly indicate. Time and time again we have had problems with the officials. They're like 'the elephant in the room'. Australia don't need any help in beating us, but they invariably get it.

He went to the screen every time for our try's.

Wasn't the main problem with Perenara in 2011 that he didn't give Tony Williams a red card for a high shot on an English player, much to the outrage of everyone on here?

Odd then that nobody appears outraged that he allowed Westwood and Burgess to play the game. I'd have expected most people to be angry at the fact neither were red carded.

You must have all changed your perspective on high tackles over the space of the last 2 years. That must be it.

Just because he's playing for England doesn't mean he's good enough for England. Mark Calderwood played for England. I guess Lee Briers & Kieron Cunningham won't international standard as they didn't play for a major nation

In all seriousness i think what Leaguefan is trying to say is Sinfield isn't good enough to play 6 for England. When Widdop came on who is a natural 6, we looked so much quicker, he ran at the line an drew the defenders in. Sinfield hasn't got enough in his attacking locker to trouble NZ or OZ IMHO. He not quick enough and i don't think i saw him take the line on at all Saturday. Organising and controlling, yes he's very good, now who is going to set up our tries?

Last GB/ England series win against the Aussies? 1978
Last GB/England major tournament wins since then? 0
Series that showed the Aussies had learned and changed 1982
Last GB/England series win against Aussies? 1978
Last GB/England major tournament wins since then? 0
Is that elephant STILL in the room?

I think someone has gone to shoot the elephant with the tranquilliser dart, missed, and hit you instead.

What are you saying exactly because at first it started off as Sinfield isn't good enough and has developed into reaching back to results from the 80's and 90's to try prove a point about 80mins from 2013.

Sometimes people can over-evaluate things and try to be smarter than they actually are........you've achieved that. And no amount of lines like "emperors new clothes" and "elephant in the room" can disguise that people see though your attempts to want to look smarter than the rest.

Sorry we've seen though you, give it up.

Makes me laugh when keyboard coaches claim Sinfields not 'international class.' Over the last 13 years 5 different England/GB coaches seem to disagree, I wonder who's correct?

Here's my twopenneth - FWIW.

I thought 1-5 were far, far better than we've seen in a long time. Whilst not the attacking threats of their counterparts (partly due to lesser quality ball), it was good to see an English back division that could at least physically hold their own. Well played Cudjoe and Watkins in particular. Just on this, could Australia please keep picking Brent Tate ahead of Jennings?

Forwards were generally good, but far too many unforced errors and poor penalties as a group. Graham (especially with his ability to play long minutes) and O'Loughlin would make a big difference to the quality we'd have on the pitch for the full 80 minutes.

Of the starting pack, my biggest issue was Westwood, who was simply dreadful. He played with a SL mindset of seeming not to matter about infringements and errors - which is 100% wrong against Australia. No amount of yardage going forward could make up for the massive penalties and errors he made. The only counter to that is that perhaps he would have made fewer errors if he was spelled on the bench? He looked knackered at times.

Put it this way, had he been playing in an NRL game he'd have been hooked before half time and not seen again, and if I were McNamara I'd rop him.

Sam Burgess was quiet in attack, but I think in part it was because he was frantically trying to provide cover in defence on the right as well as up the middle. That's also why I'd keep him out wide rather than at prop. Hopefully he won't get a big suspension.

Roby was really impressive at times. If only he could play 80 minutes we'd be a lot stronger. As it is we have to spell him, which means - IMO - another hooker on the bench. No club side spells their hooker leading to a halfback having to move (except possibly Leeds), and England shouldn't either. That means McIlorum or Burrow on the bench.

As for halfbacks, I think people have been far too hard on both Sinfield and Chase.

Firstly Chase. His defence was superb - he was regularly knocking down bigger players and he can read the play well enough to interrupt quality attacking moves. He didn't do a great deal with the ball, but didn't make many dumb mistakes, which I've seen the likes of Long do in the past.

Sinfield was never, ever going to set up a lot of tries. But his presence ensured that England kept their structure, which at that level is absolutely vital if you're to have a cat in hell's chance. My main problem with him moving to hooker was that it removed him from that pivotal role.

I don't have a huge issue with Widdopp either, and if he were to replace Chase wouldn't be too fussed, but IMO if you pull Sinfield out of that team England would almost literally fall apart.

In the end though, absolutely the best chance England have is to stick with a halfback pairing, and let them get as comfortable as possible playing alongside each other. In that respect I think McNamara deserves huge kudos, not necessarily for his choices, but for having the guts to stick with them.

The overall issues England have (and have for years) simply relate to not playing against that standard of player often enough. There were many occasions where individual players simply couldn't read the play at all. A classic example was Bird's try, where Ferres (I think) was bypassed like a statue in defence, because he clearly had no idea what was going on and who to take in defence. The only (partial) solution is to get off the line fast as a team, and in doing so at least force the opposition to make an early choice.

The pitch was poor, which IMO helped England more than Australia, except probably for Tomkins, who again looked a class act. And Australia were exceptionally rusty looking. IMO they have at least as much improvemnt in them as England.

I still doubt England can beat Australia when it counts, but IF they cut out the errors and have a stronger forward rotation they can at least give them a tough game. Which is a LOT better than can be said of previous years.

I just think that Australia, as a team, are a set up that do 1000 things 1% better than us. We've got talent, but 80 minutes seems too long for us to have to compete.

Not without hope, though. Roby's kick was all but a 40-20, but Slater somehow saved it and next thing is the linesman pinged Charnley for touching the line in a similar situation. Had Robe's kick found touch and us get the scrum, things [imay[/i have ended different.

Also the last try before half time, Tomkins goes through a gap and is through for a probably try. Gets pinged for a forward pass and from the Scrum Slater goes over. Big swing there. The difference between going in 16-12 up and 18-10 down. Those tiny margins are what top level test matches are decided on.