Quote Charlie Sheen="Charlie Sheen"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.'"
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.