+1

My thoughts exactly.

We learned from yesterday that Hill looks very comfortable at international level, that the supposed defensive frailties of our centres don't exist (now we need to get them some decent ball in attack), and that Mossop and Ablett looked just a bit lost at this level.

But as was said before, we have key players coming back for later in the tournament, so I am optimistic overall. I don't buy this 'Australia were at 40% and we were at 100%' at all, both sides will improve as the tournament progresses, England especially as they get Graham and SOL back.

I really do hate threads on England Australia games. Here are the possible outcomes from yesterday and the inevitable reaction from the usual suspects on these pages

1. Big Australia win… reaction would have been England are useless and international RL is dead in the water

2. Close game and win by Australia… reaction is “Australia were playing at 40%” and they “could have scored at will” if necessary

3. Close game and win by England… reaction would have been Australia have thrown the game in the interest of the tournament

So frustrating and so predictable. What actually happened was a tough and hard fought game of test match Rugby League where any other interpretation is an insult to the players (from both sides)

I think he has a bit of a reutation in Oz. As during the replays of 2012 final the commentator says about Billy Slater going into the try scorer before the Graham biting incident "he hasn't gone in Burgessesque" or words to that effect.

For me I would play Widdop in the next two matches with Sinfield first and then possibly Chase (if it doesn't look like it worked particular well with Sinfield in the first match). It is unfair to judge him on 20 minutes here and there especially behind a knackered pack.

Definitely Mossop should be replaced by Graham, he has been atrocious for Wigan for the last 18 months or so and he has brought his form to the international set up. Westwood, although a penalty machine he does a lot of hard work and as some have said you'll notice him when he's no there. It made me chuckle when he sort of started the pushing match then ran off.

Sam will cop a one match ban possibly two, no great deal as long as SOL is back. Put Mcillorum on bench to replace Roby. But at least there are positives to take from this match.

I agree Roby needs a back up Hooker. He can do 80 minutes but he becomes less effective over those 80. Still better than most, but not as good as his own high standards and despite being a bit of a nutter at times. MM has earned the right.

If he was in the drinking party then he had to miss yesterday, but we should not be carry a spare halfback and should not be switching the halfs part way through a game.

If there is an injury to a halfback, then Tomkins can step forward and a winger (probably charnley) cover FB.

Yesterday's line up was weakend by the drinking party and this hurt us as the line up whilst fine for Ireland and Fiji are not good enough for Oz.

Discipline hurt us both off and on the field.

You put SOL in that team, then Westwood is not having to run around like freak and then not give away as many penalties.

I also think when the head injury happened to Westwood, we should have brought Roby back to hooker, Pushed Sinfield to Loose and Sam Burgess into the 2nd row. It would have provided a better balanced side, but that's by the by.

Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best

Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best

I think that's true, unless we can also move up several notches. Obviously it's easier to see Australia having a lot more to give than it is England. The main hope in that respect is that we have a couple of world class forwards to come back. I'd like to hope that we could sort out the half backs too, but that's folorn because Sinfield is an immovable object thus boxing in the whole setup around that predetermined selection fact. Verdict on Sinfield? He did OK. I could have told you that before the game, as could every other armchair pundit. Next game? He'll do OK. And the one after. That's what Sinfield does. He plays OK, more reliably and in more positions than anyone else in SL. Just what you need in a club side.

Probably our most naturally gifted player but still lacking self-belief. However how many times do we attack with pace & depth a la Wigan to give the 3/4 a chance? Once for our first try that I can remember.

If we are going with McIlorum for Ireland, I'd still start Roby and then use McIlorum for the last 20 of the first half and the first 20 of the second half

I don't get why people are so obsessed with his aggression

Because there is not much more to his game. With no other specialist hooker in the squad there is little real alternative. But I agree, those thinking he will 'rough up' the Aussies are naïve in the extreme.

Kallum Watkins was playing opposite Greg Inglis, the superman of Australian Rugby League who was supposed to tear us a new hole

Inglis made no line breaks and just one tackle break (Watkins had three tackle breaks). Inglis came up with one great play which could not be attributed to Watkins

I thought Watkins did just fine and will grow into the tournament if he is given that right centre spot as his own

Sinfield as a club player may be every Leeds' fans wet-dream. As an international, he's not good enough.

Westwood is a liability. Every time we built momentum, this Troglodyte has a brain-fart.

Rangi looked stifled and not able to play his game as an X-factor player. Put him with Widdop.

Sinfield was one of our best players yesterday and probably our best. So that must make (most of) the other 16 less than not good enough?

Exactly! Coupled with the inevitable club bias and you could predict pretty much all the guff within this thread.