Still think if we'd played Tomkins in the middle and Hardaker at FB we'd have done alotibetter. Tomkins playing an old-fashioned supporting stand-off role feeding off HIll and G Burgess in that first 20 and we may have got clear before Australia warmed up.

Sinfield basically contributed a kick for a try. Any half-back could have been a link for a planned move. You could also say that any decent kicker could have provided the kick.

We'll never know if Chase can make an impact because he's never given free reign to have a go. He plays how he's told, which is basically a pivot. He could fail miserably, but what's the point in picking a player who plays off-the-cuff only to have them do what any HB in SL could do for the International side?

Same with Widdop. Expecting him to come on for 20 minutes with a game-plan devised by the Coach does not mean he is not worth his place. It means the way he's told to play by the coach is at fault. You want exciting off-the-cuff RL? You need to let the HB's dictate some of the play. Not play to a plan that doesn't change throughout the game.

Hill was superb two years put of ptrl

Westwood is a bungalow gets quote of the thread so far. I'm still giggling about that one.

I'm 50/50 on Sinfield. I thought he did ok, you can't really call him on the Aussie try. He was marking 2 players, the team did not slide across enough.

I'm not a fan of Sinfield as a half, but as for giving Chase a free role, to me that's similar to the arguement that some use on our home forum that Lance will play better with a good number 7.

If you can't inject yourself into the game then you can't. It's not about if only he had some mystery role it would make him better.

Maybe risk Tomkins in the halves and Hardacker at full back

To me it's pointless debating the halves as mcnamara has decided on his structure and he's sticking to it. He had this in 2011, and since then everything has been on building for the world cup so he won't change it now, injury permitting.

Starting front row was outstanding and they gave us the edge through the middle. George's footwork is nothing short of amazing for a man of his size, I get more impressed every time I see him, he could be anything in this game.

Thought Briscoe would have been a better option for us than Charnley today, bit more direct and threatening in the contact and gets a quick play more often. Bit disappointed in some individual performances but nothing that can't be fixed. O'Loughlin was a big miss for us today and if we are going to spell Roby then get McIlorum in there, he would have thrived in that physical environment.

Expect Burgess to get a game, maybe two so for me SOL, Graham and McIlorum in for Burgess, Widdop and either Tom or Mossop

We weren't too far away today I thought. What worries me for the rest of the tournament my belief that the Aussies have far more potential to improve throughout the tournament than we do. If we get to play them again that is.

The major difference today was the half backs.... Comparing Chase/Sinfield to Cronk/Thurston is classic chalk and cheese.

Chase is out of his depth at this level, Sinfield has never been upto this level..... Without wanting to hark back to the good old days, a Andy Gregory/Shaun Edwards quality half back pairing would have torn that Aussie side to pieces.

Its ironic that back when we had some decent backs, then our forwards would inevitably get blown away... Now when we have some forwards that match the Aussies, it seems obvious our backs are a mile behind theirs.

If Sinfield and chase are the best we can offer, then our game is truly in a sorry state.

When did Edwards tear 'em apart?

Not necessarily individually, but as a partnership they offered miles more.... Let's just say that I bet Edwards/Gregory worried the Aussies coaching side more than Sinfield/Chase does.

Has an opposing coach, do Sinfield or Chase offer anything that would give you any significant worries in the run up to a game?

Chase is lost in an England setup sorry.

Worked perfectly fine for Wigan in both competitions this year with what many would consider not 'exciting' halfbacks. And Sinfield was at 6 for the 2 previous GF's wins.
Chase did play more free when he first played for England in 2011, it wasn't good at all.
And sorry but regarding Widdop, if he can't come on with a game plan devised by a coach and make an impact, then yes he isn't worth his place.

It's quite clear yourself and others have made up your minds about Sinfield in the halves LONG ago, thinking that the difference today was the halves shows this. Pretty difficult for any halves to dictate play when you have Westwood and Tom Burgess knocking on at halfway just when you were on top, or Westwood and Sam Burgess giving away high shot penalties or Westwood not being able to play the ball correctly when under the Aussie posts or Charnley not chasing back hard enough.

No we'll just ignore stuff that actually happened in the game (like you did firstly by not noticing who was involved in the first two England tries because you don't like the player in question) and instead whine that Sinfield doesn't have any pace and bemoan that teams play to a plan. Do you not think Australia played to a plan? Did they (apart from the Inglis out jump) provide anything too exciting or off-the-cuff? Or were they effective, completing the basics better, better discipline and ball retention.

Hill, Ferres and George B superb. The inclusion of Tom looks like another Mcnamara clanger. He was more or less the same player that was dropped by Bradford a year a go.

Mossop was a waste of space. Westwood penalty machine. Sinfield still doesn't offer anything for a stand-off. For gods sake play Widdop from the start. It is so hard for a half back to have an impact on a game in a 20min spell. Either play Widdop from the start or not at all. Give the other bench spot to Burrow who can afd some zip at dummy half'. McNamara needs to stop putting Sinfield at hooker too. Our attack became so pedestrian with his distribution!

A lot of effort from it guys, but we won't clinical enough in attacke defence or discipline.

We did tear them apart in Melbourne 1992 but Edwardss played with Schofield in the halves, with Graham Steadman doing damage from full-back. I cannot remember Gregory and Edwards tearing them apart, although I stand to be corrected.

...... Don't want to get into a petty squabble, so I'll just point out that I said a Gregory/Edwards QUALITY half back pairing.

My main point is that our present half backs are mediocre in comparison with those we had in the late 80's/early 90's era, of which Gregory and Edwards were our most famous.