could it have been better ?

Short bombs were good but long kicking game was appaling, rarely found space and rarely had the Aussies back inside their 40 let alone their 20. Why we can;t find someone who can kick a ball 60 metres I don;t know. Also at times it seemd no one was sure who was going to kick. Not sure if that was the hooker passing to the wrong player or the half backs not taking control?

I think it was sattisfactury but compared to the kicking game against New Zealand iit was not very gd. it didnt help have 2 very inexperianced half backs

The kicking game was woefull!

We had Peacock kicking, we had early kicks (3rd tackle I think), we had kickers under pressure from Australia and we had kicks put in where the chasers did'nt know it was coming.

We kicked straight down the back three's throat, we tried short kicks when we needed to go long, we never pinned the Ausies down in a corner.

We never really tested the back three with a bomb, we only went crossfield once by my reckoning, and we scored, but why not do it again.

The halfbacks didn't get enough ball.

englands whole game plan should have been molded around the best kicking game they could produce. 3 to 4 kickers trained and prepared for the game. and not deviate from that game plan. then back it up with some of the best defence england produced in the 3 games before. kick =chase= defend=errors=no penaltys=

who's fault is that

Either they were good or they were no good,shortly after the match everyone in UK were ranting and raving about this new half back pair who are the best thing since sliced bread ,(how many times do we hear this from pommie land ??),,,now after more thoughts they are suddenly "inexperienced",, how many times in world sport do we see brilliant players for one season then they fall out to oblivion?..E Morgan???