So it's back to the bigoted attitudes then?

I'm done with this thread now, it just shows the narrow minded idiocy of the bigots on here, I bet half of you vote BNP too.

British jobs for British people eh?

if sinfield had of kicked all his goals and briscoes try been correctly give.......its 6 POINT GAME

Think you got it spot on mate.I saw the same game as you.I actually thought chase started the game well but drifted in and out the game due to the whack on the head.Sinfield isnt international standard im afraid , and ive also got to question Mcnamaras decision to play John Wilkin.I really dont know what this guy offers.We suffered losing Peacock,Graham,Ellis and if you think were missing Burgess too its near enough our 1st choice pack on the side lines .Id definately start with Widdop and chase at halfbacks

Got that right. He is way too predictable and shouldn't be in the halves!

As for Westwood, he was average at best, gave away two silly penalties that the ref got right on both calls.

We're not as good as Australia. However, if we can a couple of things, we'd be able to really give them a game.

Firstly, dumb mistakes - both high-risk solo plays such as Chase's kick, and those caused by general lack of awareness. Cut those out and we'd at least make Australia work harder for metres. I'd say a lot of the difference here is due to SL players being able to clock off for a few minutes every game. They aren't used to concentrating for the full 80 minutes.

Secondly, defence within our 20 m line. I wouldn't call it amateurish, but a failure to read and adapt to very high quality passing and running - generally caused by inexperience. England desperately need to shore up this aspect of our defence, and ought to look at how Australia themselves defend close to the line. We seem to make the cardinal mistake of standing back and watching things unfold, giving Lockyer and Thurston ages to make decisions, and also able to make killer passes without a hand laid on them.

The difference between England this year and previously is that whilst our defence is still a problem, we actually look like we have points in us as well. We won't beat Australia without improving defence, but our attack looks more promising, and we have at least 4 outside backs who look pretty good.

Anyway, personally I'd move Sinfield to 13 and put Widdopp on from the start.

I don't understand why so much negativity is being directed to the Chase kick to touch while clearly not working out it definately wasn't anywhere near as bad as the Heighington miss on Williams for the same try.

I would encourage England to try the same tactic again, the optional kick for touch really can change the momentum of a game and even though it didn't work as planned on Saturday it often does and when it doesn't the opposition still have 65+ metres to go.

I'm not saying that they should do this all of the time but new things have to be tried, just knocking out the sets doesn't work we need invention and guile to beat the Australians I'm sure thats why Chase has been and will continue to be selected.

John Wilkin?

The trouble with Chase's kick is that, like any showboat move, you can only get away with trying it if it works. You can try it, but you better not screw it. Failure is not an option. Do not attempt unless you are certain.

I agree if you're on the back foot it's an option. But we wern't, Lockyer had kicked the ball dead to slow us down and get re organised. Then Chase gave them the ball, they scored, then in the second half he passed them the ball in their 25 and they scored.

I honestly think that Leeds on a good day would make a better fist of beating Australia than England. Wire, Sts and Wigan fans may feel the same about their teams. This suggests to me that the players cannot adapt easily to playing alongside players with whom they're unfamiliar - and the less orthodox the player, the greater the difficulties facing their team-mates. This is why Chase at 7 cannot work for me. Nothing to do with him being a New Zealander.

sorry but this england team have gelled and played better together than just about any GB/ENG side in the last 10 years

To be fair, had Boyd needed to bust a gut and pull out a good piece of play to keep it infield I wouldn't have been half as critical.

It's the fact he was way off in terms of both weight and angle of the kick that made it even more infuriating.

Good to see the "Sinfield isn't an international half-back" crowd out in full force again. Have a look at how many of England's tries in this tournament he's had the final or penultimate pass in, and compare that to his supposedly more creative half back partner.

If Rob Burrow had put in three performances like Chase has he'd have been pilloried on here, and rightly so. Chase, while a fine big fish in a small pond, simply doesn't have it in him to step up at this level.

As many or more tries have been from a chase pass or penultimate pass as from sinfield, when sinfield has thrown the final pass its often been from after chase has given him the ball, ie on halls first try, tompkins last week, the briscoe 'no try' (technically not a try but should have been )
I think the reason why people are dissapointed with sinfield is that while he hasnt been poor he doesnt seem to have played as well as we know he can at club level. For me the 2 players should be swapped round, sinfield controlling at 7 and chase playing his natural game at 6.