I said it didn't at the time but as no one questioned it I wasn't bothered.

The reaction of the players was that it the Johnson effort was ok.
No quibble from the England players and some celebration from the Kiwis.

We should have taken our own opportunities to level the score.
Clock ticking, central field position and with the clock ticking and we went for the win (twice).
We should have leveled the scores and then trie to go for the win, it seemed brave, stupid or just naive ?

A couple of points.

1. I was sat right high up and parallel to the final pass for the kiwi first try and it was about 2 yards forward.

2. I also thought the messing around by kiwi at the PTB was shocking . To me Hicks was 'over compensating' the way he reffed the game to avoid any kiwi controversy.

It looks wide on that footage, although I do wonder if the footage has been manipulated as the profile seems to be image-related.

The video looks dodgy but at the time no one anywhere near that goal said they thought it missed.
Camera angles can be deceiving.

I also think that it isn't over for England yet.
Time will tell

Sarginson came inside every single time and was easy to defend.
Ironically, the errors at the end that cost us came from Sam Burgess.

I thought Lomax had an excellent game. He dropped off a tackle for one try but so had the forwards they'd already run through.
Apart from that he saved a couple and to me looked the most likely to break of all the backs (apart from the wingers who were very strong)

We needed to be more dominant in the forwards to compensate for their advantage in the backs, the younger Burgesses took a while to get going I thought. Johnson's kicking put a lot of pressure on us too. Still all to play for

Polite way of saying it went belly up from the minute Hill and Graham went off and the two Burgesses came on.

The two Burgesses together is perhaps not the best idea; I don't dispute their willingness to get stuck in, but neither have the threat or invention of Graham and Hill. Maybe a different rotation works better, with one Burgess and one of Graham or Hill on at the same time?

I like a barnstorming prop as much as the next man, but the Burgii can be guilty of trying too hard, and that results in errors - as we saw at the weekend.

We just don't have the quality in the backs. I think our pack matched theirs but we couldn't compete with their invention. Lomax did well but he should be nowhere near our best full back. Watkins is just too laid back and has yet to show anything at international level. Go back not many years and consider the impact of players like Gleeson and Carney at international level. More oomph. More fight. Sarginson is all effort and no result. McGilveray did nothing wrong but his height and size will always be a problem.

We've created the forwards but our backs are just not good enough. I can't see us creating a single headache for the Aussies.

The only plus in the long term is that for a long time now Australia has relied on a very strong spine based around Smith and either Cronk, Lockyer or Thurston. They won't be around for much longer and I'm not sure the spine is there of that quality. There's been a bit of a golden generation in Australia for a long time now, and with people like Inglis too, and I'm just not convinced that what is following behind is quite at that level. It's damn good, but not quite at that legendary level, as those players were legendary even in their mid-careers.

Im sure the quality is there to equal what will be moving on, there will be another Smith, Thurston, Slater out there I'm sure, it's the Aussie mentality .

Agreed, there has been for the last 40+ years and there is no reason for there to be a sudden stop to quality players rolling off the Green & Gold production line.

It struck me in the Aus - Scotland game, just how physically superior they were .
I know that Scotland have "lower grade" players in their first 17 but, it cant all be down to their warmer climate.
Presumably, it's just the numbers of players that they have to choose form ?

Yes more players but as England RU have proved over the years this alone does not make you world champs. NZ RU again prove the point that having more players to choose from is not the only way to be the best. Other than better coaching at all levels in Aus RL they also pick up the best Islanders and put them in a Green and Gold jumper asap.
The biggest problem we have is our style of play in SL, it is all about getting a quick play of the ball, scooting from dummy half and playing for penalties. Our crowds beg for penalties at the ruck. We rarely create anything away from the ruck. In Aus the refs don`t bother with pens for holding down, the players and fans dont mind and it is rare for a not square pen to be given. As a result the Australians create away from the rucks, they play rugby out wide, they have ball playing . In SL you often get 20 plus penalties per match , most for holding down or not square at the marker, often with two fairly equal sides the side that wins the pen count wins the match.

Don't think that might be because of the second ref though? The tacklers don't mess around as they know they'll be caught, and the tackled player doesn't flop about like a landed fish because they know they'll be found out. Here, the rucks are a mess.

Why on earth do people call it the'ruck'?
We introduced the play the ball to neutralise ' rucking and mauling'. That very expression for me ,having to endure it at grammar school ,epitomised the difference between 'rugger' and rugby league.

Just been reading the free Metro newspaper on the bus to work.

Callum Watkins was interviewed saying unfortunately, he hasnt reached his full potential whilst playing for England, something like 17 or 18 caps after making his debut.

Call me cynical here, had he have played for a less fashionable club, he wouldnt have been given that many chances.

For me, this is one of the problems with our national team