Happens every season though, doesn't it.

not quite on the same scale, but they did have the best loose forward in the world at prop.

Partially true, he has played prop quite a bit this year , including in State of Origin.
Though this is highly unusual for Australia, but normal for England.

Did hear a Leeds fan seriously suggesting we'd have won with McGuire in for Chase and Burrow for Roby after the game.

It was mainly Tomkins fault as well which is laughable as is blaming any individual. Sam Tomkins somehow got away with some abysmal errors but we didn't get away with the lack of direction the halves give us but like I say our problems are far more deep rooted then blaming the odd individual.

i dont know how this is still related to jamie peacock, but would people say that having now been hammered by aussies as per, the only reason we were ever in it at wembley was because they had to shuffle the team and lost a sub?

you could say we lost our best forwards in the second half too though. Just didnt play anywhere near as good as the previous 2 games last night unfortunatly

The Aussies beat us at the ruck. They got a lot more quick PTBs than we did. We seemed to be lacking in energy and all the ball we had to work with was slow. They also do the basics far better than we do.

Moving forward England really need a left centre and 2 half backs. I also think Tom Briscoe may find his place under threat if McGilvery can iron out some of the flaws in his game.

We have to remember that Shenton was injured, he would have partnered Reid if fit. Remember Shenton was one of the few to play well in the 2010 series. However, we have a few coming through in Hardaker, Watkins et al. In terms of half-backs, Lomax looks like a good prospect and if Brough can remain consistent he could be a good option.
What worries me is that after every loss we look to change, and at who might be playing in the next series. Maybe what we actually need is consistency rather than change, after all the Australian team seems to change very little from one year to the next and players are allowed to 'grow' into the team over a number of games. Surely we can't just bin players after 3 or 4 proper games?

Planning for 2013 - northernsportsreport.com/2011/11 ... -for-2013/ Thoughts?

Planning for 2013 - northernsportsreport.com/2011/11 ... -for-2013/ Thoughts?

Love how people are just getting written off forever on the back of one series.

Who's to say that these players won't learn from their mistakes and improve themselves next year? All people are suggesting here is replacing them with worse players (who they will then write off as well).

Rangi Chase is the Man of Steel FFS. How can you writ him off on the back of one series? Me thinks it's to do with more than his playing ability.

I agree that we need stability. However, the Australians play their players in their club positions. Those are the best players they have in each position which, IMO, is what an international team should look like. We haven't done that. What we need to do is recognise our best players in each position and then develop them into a team of best players. Sometimes they won't always play at their best during a season but they will be those players who raise their game on the big stage, have the necessary skills and physical qualities for their position and be young enough and fit enough to play the full 80. Then we need to stick with that team.

ive no idea why england and gb have this habbit of player loose forwards at stand off !

That's the key one. Good SL player and I'd have him in my team but has never ever had the X Factor to play at international level.

When will we learn that ordinary won't cut it especially in a pivotal position. He has no attributes that allow him to shine against the best in the world. He is too small, has no pace, is not a great passer of the ball, has an average kicking game. This is bad enough but he can't read the game either and by now he should be word perfect.

Can you imagine the Aussies persisting with him if he were as Aussie. Leon Pryce was hardly world class but he was big and hard to handle with a turn of speed and he is the best we have come up with in years.

Truth is we simply do not produce enough good players, nothing to do with intensity etc. We could have a league of six teams with no imports and we would still be no better, because Sinfield would still be one of the best.

I'll also throw Atkins in the mix. Technically not a great centre but at least he's strong and fast and might have actually troubled the Aussies. Instead we play Yeaman who is a workmanlike centre who goes well at SL but simply has nothing to offer at this level.

Exactly. We first failed to match the physicality in the impact, epitomised by Gallen and Thaiday, which then gave Smith a lovely platform. Peacock hasn't been able to muster that kind of impact, although I though Morley did.

Whilst the score was close for a long time, I don't feel the game was. We were hanging on and they were being patient - they bombed a couple, came close with a couple and had a couple chalked off by the VR.

That being said, it was a very good Aussie team, imo. When they did something, they generally did it faster and slicker than we did.

I'm not going to rant and rave about who should be dropped because i think the theory that always come up of players being "tried and failed" is borderline ridiculous. Our best players are still our best players, picking our 2nd best players isn't a way to improve the situation.

I think we would have looked a lot better if we could have taken Smurgess and O'Loughlin in the back row. I also think we'd have looked better in Lomax had played 7, but that highlights our biggest weakness - player pool depth.

I'll defend Sinfield, whilst I wish he was better, his controlling role is one that not many halves in superlegue can match. People talk about Danny Brough, but his good days never seem to be when I'm watching. Gaskell is a youngster who could be developed to fill this role. Hopefully by the time of the WC he will be ripping it up for Saints on a regular level.