So you can't tell the difference between losing by 40 and losing by 4? Not much of a surprise there. Add dire at maths to your many list of faults.

Anyone who believes the selection of Hardaker at full back would not result in "several" positional changes for other England players is the one who is indeed dire at maths as well as being dire in relation to "several" other disciplines too.

Inability to distinguish between excellent Australian teams and worst ever Australian teams... hence the differential in margins of defeat... duly noted.

After reading all the dross on hear the only thing I think would have made us better was to have played a couple of warm up games and that would have let the coach see how all the players played in 2 different teams and he might have had a couple of changes but how do we do it,all we have over hear to play against is France and wales fat lot of good that is when oz. and new Zealand play each over lots of times

Funny how the people claiming Australia could put together 3 teams capable of beating England are the same people claiming the only reason England came close was because the Australians were poor! The real reason we lost that game was a shocking decision. End of. We matched both Oz & NZ play for play, in their back yard. To claim that isn't progress is ridiculous. I'm no huge McNamara fan, nor agree with some of his selections - and that's not just a club bias - but he's doing a good job given his hands are tied by such an inept international program.

I agree,i think we would have beaten the Aussies with a warm up game first then followed by the Samoa game.
I also think its time the England knights were taken seriously,They need a series of trial matches throughout the season so the coaching staff can have a look at the likes of Hardaker,Ratchford,Burgess,Makinson,Whitehead etc outside of ther club environment.
I think the Aussies have blooded 9 players so far in this tournament,we cant do that

The fact of the matter is the Australian team was very strong, it was in no way third rate. They picked the best players based on how they played in the NRL this season, there was not one player that did not deserve to be there

The core of that great team has come to an end, they have to start picking new players, RL players have a life span they do not play for ever

2006???? SFS, Australia 12 Great Britain 23...

And its wonderful that everyone conveniently overlooks the fact that Samoa can say exactly the same things as England and were rightly aggrieved not to have beaten us...this is the same people who overlooked the dreadful performances against the NRL over 30 team and against the might of Italy...the most embarrassing performance in England RL history...

We have a pretty good set of players but we have no "winning mentality" from the top down...

They were creditable performances, and I agree that the reason we're not in the final is a bent video ref.

But...

It's not good enough to say "we're getting there". International rugby isn't like a league season where you have 28 games to improve, many of which are dead rubbers. In a good year we have 3 games, and they ALL count. So as they used to say in the merchant navy in 1942, "a near miss is as good as a mile".

You have to win. It's as simple as that. We had the game against Australia by the scruff of the neck, then let it go - Sutton should never have been in the position to cheat us because we should have been scores ahead. Likewise against the kiwis we had loads of scoring opportunities which we did not capitalise on. These are not small things. That's about professionalism, ruthlessness and a winning belief. I actually DO think we have the physical talent to match and beat them (except in the halves) but we do not have the culture and attitude to do so.

That's why, on a different thread, I joined those calling for a new coach. McNamara has taken us so far, but we need someone else to take us further.

I'm 44. I've never seen England/GB win a series or comp with the Aussies in. I've seen us beat NZ in a series once, I think (maybe twice). I've probable got between 30 and 40 years left. I'd like to see a win just once before I die, rather than turning my tied up saying "well, we got close and were unlucky a few times"

I can't agree with this. Australia was still full of quality but the likes of Thurston (IMO best player in the world) and Slater haven't yet met their sell by date.

That's without taking into account Gallen, Matt Scott, Tamou and Fafita who would have all walked into the Aus pack.

Close, but no cigar.
But I agree with the general thrust on here that we are making progress. No we didn't win, but we were at the races, which is more that you could say not so long ago when the Aussies were sticking 50 on us. And for all the trolls on here banging on about what a weak Aussie side it is, you can only play what's put in front of you.

Regarding the England Knights, I'm all in favour of them having regular tours against some of the south sea island nations. Would help the knights with game time, and give the smaller nations internationals that they can be competitive in, and hopefully improve their standard of play.

We can't handle pressure. We fold when ever the game is on the line.

...Like Australia did?
They were awfully rusty against the Kiwis, a bit better v England and pretty decent against Samoa....all in preparation for the 1 game that actually matters this weekend.

Agreed.it would have been nice to have a had a run out prior to Samoa but that was a tough game in tough conditons that should have been enough to shake the rust and for Mcnamara to see what worked and what didn't so no excuses.

I think Australia will win this weekend but it will be tight.The kiwis have a big edge in the pack which should ensure they are always in the game.

It really depends which Kiwi side show up. They were poor v Samoa, getting sucked into Samoa's game plan and v England, they were pretty flat.