And if the fullback can't catch, they don't even get the chance to handle the ball.

Sam Tomkins looked the same this year against the Aussies when under pressure as he did last year against the Aussies when under pressure. His abilities under the high ball are questionable when under pressure (which he will be at international level if the opposition is worth its salt) and his line defence is poor. While I accept that the fullback has become more of an attacking threat in the modern game, that doesn't mean that a fullback shouldn't still be at the very least a good defender. And he should definitely be able to cope with a high ball under pressure if he wants to play on the international stage. That's his job.

True to a degree, but Thurston in particular and Lockyer were afforded the space to express themselves. Sinfield and Chase weren't. This is in part due to the Aussies domination in the forwards (in defence as well as attack). The kicking game was poor, partly because of lack of field position and largely because of kick pressure.
Just as 6,7 and 9 need to lead the forwards around the park, so the forwards need to 'lay the platform' (not my term but one that is frequently used by top players and coaches alike)
I'm not arguing that our 6,7 and 9 are as good as the Aussies. That would be simply ludicrous, but the inability of the rest of the team to compete effectively did have some influence.

I think the reason your post bugged me is that earlier you blamed Sinfield, Chase and Roby for being average and Hall, Ellis, JJB , Graham and Carvell for their errors. Only Tomkins was excused for his mistakes on account of the pressure he was under.
Unless you recognise that the rest of the team, and particularly the playmakers were also under much more pressure than they are used to, your analysis will remain tainted by accusations of club bias.

Thanks for that I needed a laugh..you don't watch sam much do you. (who would you pick at FB?)

Oooo watch it! making a strong post with solid points could see this thread shut down.

Not at all, however, derailing it with childish comments like yours could see it shut down. If you have a problem with the way the site is run you know where you can go.

A bit of assistance from his teammates wouldnt have gone a miss. One of the few effective kicks we put up early on Reed was chasing and was edged out by Thurston so Boyd could catch the ball. The kicks Tomkins flapped at there were 3 or 4 aussies within a few feet of him with no England players anywhere near.

while i would like to say sam is solid under the high ball, i dont think i could and believe it myself. as you say, the key point is under pressure, which he does not seem to deal well with. in regards to his line defence however, i would ask why you think it is questionable

Saintsfan you really are a silly boy/girl. Anything to have a go at the hated enemy, regardless of the right or wrong of it. You can sit smug tonight with your can of the old purple, knowing you are right and that you've pointed it out. So what, England lost but the man you hate most made a mistake. Sam had, by yours and Stevos standards a poor game. Well done. By the way, as part of the pre match entertainment in the next Wigan-Saints game, they are having a catch the high ball comp, all for charity. Pat Richards is going to kick a ball as high as he can, Jeff Lima, LMS, and Sean O'Loughlin will be about 2 foot from the fan who's volunteered to catch it, running at full speed. Let's see if you'll volunteer. Doubt you could even catch a cold.

We're incredibly enlightened on here, which is why so many people from other teams (such as yourself) want to post. Unfortunately with that traffic comes numbnuts
who simply want to derail threads just when a decent debate was about to break out.

Tomkins is a very good player and may become great and I will forgive any player who has a bad game now and then. His problem is that he will have more and more bad games at full back as opponents realise that if you put him under pressure by making him field high kicks, grubbers and making tackles, he simply cannot be as effective in attack from full back (see CC Semi Final where he spent time turning round to collect kicks, knocking them dead for half a dozen drop outs, St Helens using three or four players to tackle him). He is being given an almost impossible task as all expect him to be brilliant defensively and then score eighty metre tries.

Play him at six, for both club and country, which will mean even if he does miss the odd tackle, there should be a full back behind him. More importantly, he won't be getting gang tackled and therefore knackered when in international games where the opposition is often of better standard than the lower super league clubs against whom his defensive requirements have been less frequently tested. For country at least, it'll mean Widdop will get more game time (which he deserves) and no Sinfield (or Chase for that matter)....at all....anywhere.....

i imagine that is the idea if he stays in this sport for as long as hoped, but just look at lockyer. he didnt move to the halves until he was 27 and established as a state of origin and international fullback.

Just like our own board where you have been a regular for time, where there is massive traffic, where the gloating and laughing from many was at a peak last season. But as I've said before he who laughs last laughs longest.

Back on topic and back on point. People bagging individuals for the defeat is BS. As I said before it's foolish. Tomkin fluffed a few bombs in the series sinfield through a few crap passes and kicks(saying that i recon he touched the ball more than any English player). Basically we had our best team out there from who was fit. You can argue the toss others should have played. The reasons we lost in my opinion is that the Aussies broke us open at will and only a bit of luck in England's favour stopped it been a blow out before half time.

Wow - Was getting eye strain reading through that lot

Bottom line - If you want an ENGLAND team to win TOURNAMENTS
Then get a decent NATIONAL coach,Not some half baked banana who believes the media hype
By 2013 You'd better have a team based around all the young blokes currently on the rise,(by then they SHOULD be battle hardened) & allow them to gell as a unit.
The core of the Roos was the core of the maroons.They don't need to worry about 2nd guessing each other because they're a unit.

I am not sure any coach (even Bennett) would be able to transform England into a winning team. I think the issue is not entirely with individual players (even though some did have poor games). The big difference for me is that ALL the Australians play with their heads up - they are aware of what is going on in the game and what is needed - plus they have superb leaders at 6,7 and 9. So they can spot weaknesses or opportunities and take advantage and do not panic if things do not work out - they just keep going.

England on the other hand have too many players who play heads down drive it in and do not read the game so just go through the same things time after time (at times I though we were back to having Noble as coach 5 drives and a poor kick). When we do try and break out of that it is panic stations with stupid off-loads or players running down a blind alley time after time. We do not play to a well defined and drilled structure.

Until we can produce players across the pitch who play smarter we will never beat the Aussies when it matters because we will always be at a disadvantage. I honestly cannot think of any English players who have the game sense of the likes of Thurston, Lockyer and Smith (and that is not taking into account their playing skills as well).