I think that sadly reinforces what we've been saying about the intensity of the competitions. Shenton is top scoring centre in SL. In the NRL he would struggle to start in any side. That's not a criticism of Shenton, by the way, I think he was the best English centre available this year. But he's a long way from Senior, Gleeson or Newlove as an attacking centre. Sadly, once I get past those three, I'm really struggling to think of a deent attacking centre the English have produced in the Super League era.

Perhaps it's cause those positions have been taking by overseas pension seeking crocks?

But I suppose you could argue that if that was the case how come the players mentioned above in Senior, Gleeson and Newlove never had there places taken by such players then?

Not a valid explanation, IMHO, since clubs are looking for and signing players from age 16 and under. Australia are lucky in that they have a crop of truly exceptional backs including the likes of potential Hall of Famers like Inglis, Slater and of course the magnificent Lockyer. It's true that we have of late produced very little in the way of world-class backs (let alone Hall of Famers) but if you think about it, any club who managed to produce a young Hayne, Folau, Inglis, Slater or Lockyer would hardly be likely to play them in the stiffs while signing an ageing journeyman.

If you disagree, then feel free to put up a list of these would-be superstars who were spurned in favour of such also-rans.

I agree that it's in the backs that we can't compete.

If you look at Jamie Lyon. He torn up the SL while he was here. If you had to rate him out of 10 he'd be at least an 8 or a 9. On that basis you'd have to rate Bridge as a 6 and Shenton (I know he's more of a defensive centre) as a 6 or a 7.

Jamie Lyon can't even get in the Australian team. They have centres who are at least as good and some even better (Inglis).

The current crop of English backs are a couple of stages below the Australian. Shenton and Bridge would struggle to get in NRL sides, never mind being the best centres in the competition. The same could be said of Fox and Atkins.

This arguement comes up time and again and I've yet to hear a valid explanation from anyone as to why it effects the quality of our international side. Anyone who is even close to being good enough to get in the England side will play regularly for a club side. Can you name me one player in Superleague atm who genuinely has the potential to be good enough for England but is being kept out of his club side by an Aussie?

Ainscough and Tompkins at Wigan seemed to have been passed over for overseas players except where Noble had no other option.

I'm probably wrong on that, but I'm used to it by now!

My main worry with Shenton prior to the tournament was his defence. However this was very good and I dont think he missed a tackle. He was certainly looked better in defence than when Gleeson has played against Australia. In attack I think he looks too lightweight at this level and needs to bulk up a little. He is still young though and should do with age. All in all though I think he did well.

IMO if Inglis had been given the ball that Shenton or Bridge had, they wouldn't have been able to do anything either. It's extremely harsh to judge Shenton or Bridge as attackers when they are given absolutely nothing to work with.

And the notion that they weren't given anything because we don't think they could do anything is also wrong. At the very least they would be making their opposite numbers have to work in defence. But what we did was pretty much give their 3/4s the shift off in defence so they were fresh for their attacks.

I suppose there's chicken and egg there. Do they not attack because we don't give them ball, or do we not give them ball because they can't attack ?

I think there was another key issue last night about the way the threequarters played : when Thurston and Lockyer take the ball, they do traditional half-back things, like standing deep to receive to give themselves space and then running sideways across the pitch looking to put runners in gaps. As we saw in the last twenty yesterday, they had no shortage of backs hitting those gaps. The reason Inglis, Hodges and Slater made so many breaks is because they were hitting passes from the halves at pace in holes. Contrast that with our halves. Eastmond and Tomkins both took the ball close to the PTB so the rush defence gave them very little time. Then their choices were either to ship it from a standing position - esentially just losing us yards and not challenging the defence - or to go for the individual effort, stepping, ducking, trying to break the line themselves, which against an international defence isn't going to happen. I think it was really noticeable that our best fifteen minutes at the start coincided with Eastmond playing more of a creative role, running flat and turning balls inside and outside for runners to hit gaps. We didn't do it as well as the Aussies, but it was working for us. However, after that first quarter we saw almost none of that.

That's partly about the fact that our threequarters and second-rows don't run at gaps like the Aussies do, but it's also about what we expect from halves in this country. We tend to go for small, nippy blokes who can see an opportunity for themselves, or are good at backing up, but a creative half like Thurston or Lockyer ? Who was the last one you can remember ? I'd say Goulding. Any advances on him ?

We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be maintained.

We matched them for an hour, but then the class of there backs took over. Slater was unbelievable, Inglis was just swotting our players off and Hayne was given to much space to run. Best English player was Burgess by a mile. Graham did alright apart form that shocking pass to Thurston and Eastmond was lively. Think were more than a match for them in the forwards but they are lightyears in front in the backs.

Agreed that is one of the biggest problems with RL in this country, especially for halfbacks, playing Eastmond at 7 on the biggest stage is an example of this, a fine player but just dosnt offer the basics that Thurston or any number of options the Aussies could field, if Billy Slater was English and had come through the ranks at a SL club I bet he would have played at 7 last night despite lacking some of the skills needed, we tend to try and just fit players in at all levels of the game in this country, if you can beat a man it dosnt matter were you play, the Aussies have a deeper level of understanding at all levels in opinion, especially with positions and roles of individual players.

Andrew Johns gives his opinion on why we lost and any one watching would have said exactly the same thing. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5797950424 Apologies if this has already been posted but cant be bothered looking through all the pages.

Andrew Johns gives his opinion on why we lost and any one watching would have said exactly the same thing. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5797950424 Apologies if this has already been posted but cant be bothered looking through all the pages.