Lots of positives. Some costly negatives.
Just chuck 'em below.

The referee is corrupt. Australian's are horrible. International league could be mega if only we could win.

Sinfield is pants, Westwood was poor, Briscoe was bullied. All in all a decent performance considering out best two forwards sat it out injured.

I think you should go to the International board!

Sorry, just spotted it. Lock this?

Absolutely

If you think Westwood was poor, what was Jon Wilkin? Tip toeing fairy that he is.

i said on another board that 16 other player are carrying him, but i like your analogy of him better!

Thoughts on the game Players

Tomkins - excellent
Hall - best winger England have had since the days of Robinson, on this form
Reed - what a pleasure it was to see proper centre play when he set up Hall's second try. Good try of his own. I don't agree with the criticism of his defence in some quarters. Mostly, the Aussies worked their overlap so well as to give him no choice.
Yeaman - sorry, but this guy's just a second row playing in the centre. Offers almost nothing in attack. Terrible defensive decisions in the second half backing off from attacking players near the line.
Briscoe - Good footwork on ball returns often beat the first man, but error prone too. Combined with Yeaman, we were basically one-sided in attack, only offering threat down the right.
Sinfield - Kicking was mixed, but crucially, too slow to take on the line like the Aussie halves. He was a postbox in attack.
Chase - I wonder whether those who have criticised Chase's performance are the same people who didn't think he should be selected in the first place. He was the best attacking weapon we had after Tomkins throughout the game, and while there were some brainfarts (the kick from the restart was the worst), what he lacked was runners when he created uncertainty in the defensive line.
Graham - immense, and it was noticable that England made less progress when he was off.
Roby - would like to see a few more runs from dummy half, and someone should tell him not to kick, as his boot isn't good enough. But a few good darts and excellent defence.
Peacock - Good in defence, but clearly his buggered knee prevented his normal contribution in go-forward.
Westwood - please, please drop this guy. He reminds me of Scott Moore - all aggression and bugger all brain. A penalty machine, who was also at fault for one try through lazy defence.
Ellis - looked great while he was on, and his absence was a key reason for the decline of the English 2nd half performance
Heighington - just a cultural cringe to the NRL. There are better back-rowers playing in SL, and two better ones on the bench. Absolutely no point. The Williams try was embarrassing at international level.

Widdop - didn't do much when he got on, but that's because presumably he hasn't been training as the stand-off pivot.
Morley - good solid lad, but his internatonal days are well behind him, and didn't make enough metres with the ball
Wilkin - didn't find enough gaps to run at, although a nice pass to Set Tomkins off for the second try. Needs to be either a playmaker or a hard-runner. At present not making enough plays or running hard enough.
JJB - Ran really well when he came on. A proper battering ram and a handful. Good impact.

Issues

The game was lost in the forwards. England does have a mostly international-standard pack. But the key international players are Graham, Roby, Peacock and Ellis. When they were all firing in the first half, we were dominant, making space for the backs, and creating a bit of a roll which greater composure or creativity would have turned into points. When Graham, Ellis and Peacock were effectively either removed from the pitch, or playing with injuries, then our go-forward stopped, and the backs had no space. Chase and Tomkins look very dangerous when given space, but we didn't do that in the second half, and that, effectively, is the story of the game with ball in hand. The story of the game defensively is that the Aussies were very likely to score whenever they had 3 or more tackles in our 20m. Our defence was poor at dealing with the Aussie dummy runners, and too often that allowed Thurston, Lockyer and Cronk to give a simple pass putting a man in a one-on-one situation close to the line, which is always going to be difficult to stop.

Biggest weakness

Coaching. This game was lost before the kick-off because of the coaching. The selection at international level remains bizarre. The best stand-off for England this year is either Widdop (played for the Aussie minor premiers in that position) or Chase (won man of steel in that position). Macnamara chooses Sinfield, who isn't even the best stand-off at Leeds. The best loose-forward this year was Sinfield, but Macnamara chooses Heighington, a journeyman pro utility forward. Decisions like that hurt us badly, because to we've clearly trained to have Sinfield as pivot, and he is simply not an international half-back. He is, arguably, an international loose-forward, and should be played there.

The difference between the Aussie coaching and the English coaching was apparent. Look at Inglis's try - it was the best of the match. Not because it was a length of the field thing, but because of the amazing team skill which went into it. Every Aussie player was running at the line, all in a position to take a pass. Each one committed a defender, allowing the pass out the back to hit Inglis. It was a wonderfully worked bit of skill which came from long hours on the training field. England, on the other hand, when they passed the ball, offered no uncertainty about who would get it. The only question was when the ball would be passed to the obvious receiver. Occasionally, there was a single, obvious, dummy runner going through and the ball was passed behind him. The Aussies never bought it. As a result, our tries came from either acts of individual brilliance, usually from Tomkins, or the old hoof it up and compete for the catch option. That's coaching. I have to say that the most depressing reading on the England teamsheet is the coaching staff. Macnamara - failed at Bradford; Lowes - failed at Warrington; Powell - failed at Leeds, none of whom are head coach at a SL outfit, so don't even have up-to-date coaching experience. Sheens - a very successful coach still up to date because of his involvement at a top club.

We might still beat NZ, because they don't look that impressive, but only if Graham, Peacock and Ellis can be patched up. But until we get some decent coaching, it won't be enough to beat the Aussies.

Someone has a bit of time on their hands

Biggest difference between the two teams is the half backs.

Whenever Australia get into our 20 Lockyer and Thurston are cool and calculated in what they do (often helped by Smith). Each runner knows exactly what to do and set moves look slick and easy.

When we get into the Aus 20 we have Chase running round in circles confusing not only the opposition but his own team mates, Sinfield and Widdop kicking the ball straight into the oppositions arms or Roby trying a spectulative grubber usually ending up dead in goal.

Until we get a settled half back pairing who can organise and bring a quality attacking kicking to the international scene we will struggle against Australia.

That said I enjoyed the game yesterday and thought in general we played well and gave a decent account of ourselves. A couple of tweaks to the team and a reduction in the number of silly errors a lot of our players make and I can see us beating the Kiwis next Saturday. Cant wait!

Drop: Sinfield, Wilkin, Yeaman
Teach the wide out defenders how to defend as a team
Get Tomkins involved more
Play Widdop at 6
Don't panic when Australia kick up a gear
Drink less beer and get to the gym more so we don;t flag in the last 10 mins of each half

Should see us right!

The were three really embarassing things yesterday:

1. As Roy H said - the coach's squad selection. I said it was bizarre previously and it remain be an embarassing cloud all tournament.

2. Chase's drop-out. If his idea (and not the coach's) he should be dropped and NEVER play again for England. It was inept and stupid and anyone capable of that should never be allowed near an international again. Hard but true.

3. Oz's second half try near the posts off the short pass. It was so obvious - the sort of thing I was doing as a 7 year old - making a big play - lots of pointing / arm waving suggesting they were putting on a move to swing it wide right. To fall for that was embarassing and shows a weakness in the minds of the players. The Ozzies certainly looked pleased (or were they laughing!).

We flattered to decive yesterday. After scoring first we never looked like we were going to win. It was not exciting because the result was never in doubt after 15 to 20 minutes. Despite what people seem to be saying on here we have been MUCH more competitive than that only numerous occassions since 1995. To me, I just saw us look like we are falling further behind - still relying on Ellis, Peacock, Morley and Sinfield for impact - guys who are getting to the back ends of their careers and are not quite the players they were 2 years ago.

Same as it has been for years. Australia look fitter and do the all the basic skills better. That lets them put more pressure on other teams. Who then commit errors, both physical and mental. They don't often pick players out of position. They might be a little better at "playing" the referee.
I thought England made a valiant effort today, but they're just not quite good enough.
I look forward to eating my words when England win the tournament......................