Yes exactly. The Aussies were losing so they changed their tactics. Did our coach respond? No.

It wasn't different tactics that cost us but a failure to implement the game plan properly in the second half. The Aussie came out and played better, you'd expect that of the home team. But having weathered the early storm and forced a scrum, it wasn't the coaches fault we dropped the ball on their 20, on the second tackle, was it?

Still if the video ref had done his job properly we would have won. That's not the coaches fault either.

I've been a massive critic of McNamara in the past, but this time it just isn't warranted. He picked the best team available. They played well. They deserved to win.

As St Pete posted "I think sheens made a big call bringing hunt on and playing with 3 halves. They moved us around then which give GI the space he needed.

Also the Aussies speeded up the play the ball which killed us."

You did not notice that? Are they not different tactics? It was not down just to our individual errors. McNamara did not respond to the Aussie change in tactics.

Sorry but how is 'speeding up the play the ball' different tactics? It's what every team tries to do unless you are shutting a game down in the last 5.

They moved us around because Cronk is a great kicker - it's what he always does.

Getting Greg Inglis into space isn't a tactical change. It's what they always try to do.

You are over analysing this. The Aussies played better in the second half and got lucky with the officials. Nothing to do with the coach (on this occasion).

Playing three halves not a different tactic?

No. They had Cronk, Cherry Evans and Hunt. England had Smith, Widdop and O'Loughlin. A ball playing 13 is as old as Rugby League mate.

i was talking to Dean Bell a few years ago before he moved back to NZ. He said if the game is decided by one refs decision then you haven't done enough to win. If the team doesn't let Australia back into it in the second half with penalties and overly conservative play, or if we have made all that first half dominance count for more than 12 points, then it really wouldn't have mattered whether the Hall try was given or not, the game would have already been settled.

I don't think McNamara will have told the lads to play conservatively or give away penalties but at the end of the day they did, and it's his job to decide what the plan is and make sure they execute it. The players not following his plan is as much a bad indictment of his coaching skills as him coming up with a bad plan in the first place, because it shows he is ineffective

I agree with you regarding Joel Tomkins.

I disagree with you about Westerman, I though he was poor against Samoa and would have dropped him even if O'loughlin hadn't played.

With regards to O'loughlin you're talking absolute nonsense, first half O'loughlin was very good, both in defence and attack, he helps the attack so much as he takes the ball right to the line. Yes he wasn't 100% but at 70% he easily better than westerman.

Also he's not arguably the best 13 we have when fit, he's easily the best 13 we have when fit.

When fit he's arguably the best 13 in the world. (Ask Ryan Hoffman)

Name dropper!!!

Yes but one team has to win. Maybe we didn't do enough, but by the same token neither did Aussie.

You can't deny that the decision over Hall's try is wrong. Widdop gets to kick for the match. Because the decision was so late in the game it WAS the deciding factor.

If England win - no-one is debating McNamara's tactics. And all of a sudden Tim Sheens is under the spotlight. We get to pull his game plan apart (as I said to Andy Gregory!).

The difference was that the Aussies did not start with that set up. They adopted it when they were losing, a change of tactic that worked. The other difference was that O'Loughlin sole contribution was to give penalties away. If you cannot see the difference there is no point in continuing the discussion.

If you think that SOL's sole contribution was to give away penalties then I'm with you. No point in continuing.

But the overall trend is he falls short more or less every time. Why is it that at our very best under McNamara with a weakened Australia team we can only be about level with them?

Even with a couple of injuries under Waite and Noble we still managed to beat good Australia teams, the margins were 8, 12 and 11 points. In all three games we started the game well and kept it going in the second half. We didn't have to come back from behind or score a late winner and we had it sealed late on. Coaching at international level is a very hard job but the harsh reality is that he is failing to live up to the standards of his predecessors, never mind improving on their efforts

Yes you are right, and I'm no fan of McNamara. His decisions last year cost us a place in the World Cup final IMO - leaving out James Graham and Gaz Hock for the Aussie group game and sticking blindly with Sinfield and Chase.

However with the correct video ref decision we win and get to the final with a chance of winning the tournament. My main point was that luck plays a part in sport and he got none on Sunday. It could end up costing him his job (or one of them!!!).