Look, it's been covered to death and is now being over-analysed to death. He took the wrong option, it's as simple as that. We can all see why he did it, but it was still the wrong option. He went too quickly and missed his tackle.

I'm not doing over point-for-point ad-nauseam. You think others are to blame for not covering his mistake. There may be a grain of truth to that but they should never have been put in that situation.

Got to agree, and with Burrow only playing 12 ineffective minutes, we basically chose to play them with 15 men. With the extra 36 tackles that we had to do it was inevitable that we would get tired at the end.

Whether you rate Ablett as an international standard player or not, he should have been on the field for some time in the 2nd half doing some tackling and giving some tired legs a break.

Roby can play 80 minutes. We don't need an inferior back up to come on and replace him for short period.

Were you actually at the game? I was and I called what was going to happen before the PTB - we were totally and utterly exposed. It doesn't look like that on TV but I assure you that was the case. NZ set it up well and we were suckered. Sinfield had to make a call because they were going to score if he didn't. The guy has played RL at elite level for 16 years or so and he made that rush for a reason - and it wasn't because he knows less about the game than you or because he was confident the defence could cope with a simple drift or because he the sort of player who makes rash decisions - it was pure need.

The Kiwi's pressurised Widdop for his kick but it was the unpressured kick by Sinfield that was poor

But as I said history now

Shall I tell you what the Australian Assistant Coach (and good friend of Sinfield's) said about it when asked? Let's just say he didn't agree with you. The poor kick and Sinfield rushing out of defence. He also said the best option was for NZ to go wide to 'the one player on the pitch who never misses a tackle - the touchline', and to the wide defenders who had coped pretty well all game. He knows more about RL than Sinfield, me, you and all of RLFans combined. Certainly you. I'll take his opinion over yours and pretty much anyone else.

It's simply a golden rule in defence - you don't rush out. It doesn't matter that NZ had a 1 man overlap. It really is that simple.

I think I said that right up front. Fact still is they were going to stroll in if Sinfield didn't get out quick. (Actually, jis outside defenders got out with him as it happens, just those inside who didn't). As I said before if he'd had slightly more explosive pace he'd have got their earlier and either made the tackle or more likely shephered Johnson wide, for them to score in the corner rather than close to the posts. They were always going to score from that position if he hadn't tried something. I don't blame him, except maybe for not standing wider from the PTB - but that would have required the inside players standing wider too and leaving exposure to a try from dummy half. NZ stacked out right with SBW in the middle of the phalanx, England tried to cover that and had abour 5 covering the dummy half effort. The ball was always going left - NZ had us.

They were not 'always going to score'. You're basing your entire argument on this statement and it simply isn't true. There was only a one man overlap with the wide man tight to the touchline - actually pretty simple to defend. Charnley, Watkins and Sinfield could easily have moved in, held and slid as the ball moved. It's a very common defensive movement - indeed they had performed it well earlier in the game.

There was simply no need to rush in. All he did was give Johnson the opportunity to step and left a huge hole, whereas a solid line of sliding defenders is much, much harder to penetrate.

They were not, by any stretch of the imagination, going to 'stroll in'. What a ridiculous and ignorant statement.

Not necessarily. NZ might have dropped the ball or thrown it straight into tough or been tackled into touch.

He got it wrong and missed the tackle. Can't believe people are arguing otherwise.

What ever happened to the fullback being behind the play of the ball on the try line?

The thing which is a killer about it (and again why i think Sinfield's decision to go for Johnson was correct) is that if the pass from dummy half is straight to Johnson where he's expecting it to go then Sinfield hits him just as he gets it. You can see on the replay that Johnson actually has to take 2 steps back to take it and it creates just enough of a gap between him and Sinfield whom had managed to reached the exact spot Johnson was stood when the pass originally set off.

Weird thing sport when if New Zealand produced a neater pass at that time they'd have lost and been out.

such is RL! I don't think anyone can and is blaming that one event, it was a number of key moments where poor decisions were made or plays poorly executed, any one of them done right may have made a difference, sadly for Sinfield his just happened to be the last opportunity to win the game and he fluffed it. Coach has to take a big portion of the blame, who in a game as tough as we knew that would be decided to play a 15 man squad? Having one sub on the bench not used and one barely used is insanity and not surprisng that on the last qtr of each half was when we looked the poorest.

That's true - but the pass was a bit looped and so took longer to arrive and so allowed a little more time to get there.

I don't think it is the correct call though Printer as NZ scored. That's the thing shooting out of the line, it's all it nothing. IF Sinfield shot out of the line and nailed him, He would have been a hero, but as he missed the tackle its game over. If he holds his line, yes NZ have an overlap, but doesn't necessarily mean they score, it has to go two pairs of hands to reach the winger, if which Charnley or Watkins could have stopped it, it NZ had to do killer pass.

I agree, i always say, if you shoot out of the line you MUST make the tackle, or at least halt the attacker, if you don't theres havoc in the defensive line.

What happened happened, unfortunatley. It's a team game for 80 minutes and theres a whole bunch of things that go into it. The entire structure of englands last 2 sets was poor and that is what they should take out of this. Not that a player missed a tackle with 20 seconds to go, but that they weren't able to play smart football under severe pressure.

It doesn't get any easier, next season we go down under into the lions den.

Just tried to read most of this thread.

Where is there a mention of Ben Cummins in all this? In the first place, two series of penalties in the second half - one series to NZ, one series to Eng - decided which team would hold the ascendancy and for how long. It really didn't seem to me that either side changed their approach at the PTB throughout the game but Cummins had a spell where he got fussy with England and then a second spell where he got fussy with NZ.

Second, Cummins allows the game to be played very slowly. Not only does he penalise a lot, he also allows big breaks in play at scrums, goal-line drop-outs. I think each half lasted about 46 minutes.

Re. issue 1, we have this same problem whenever we get two world-class teams making relatively few errors - refs become absolutely crucial. When neither side can win the arm wrestle nor score from outside 20m, penalties are decisive. SoO faced this issue and refs were encouraged to let most things go. I wonder what would have happened if Cummins had given 5 pens instead of 20? Would a less fractured game with more PTBs have suited England?