Agree Dabhand, we really should have blooded Gaskell and Lomax in this tournament, Tomkins is wasted at 1, like us at FC the 6 and 7 pivotal roles are so important and we've lacked them for 6 yrs now, Chase and Sinfield v Thurston and Lockyer, just no contest, another ageing pack too, well beaten, and i know its not Westwoods fault, but a 13??

indeed, but there are also other factors to take into account, like their climate etc.

people have been arguing this for years, when it comes to sport the Aussies are just better at it than we are (on the whole)

Not really. We are better than them at football. We just panned them in the Ashes. We are better at a number of olympic events. To say they are 'better at sport' is inaccurate and simplistic. Hell, we've even won an RU world cup more recently than them.

How do you explain NZ's RL team then?

I think they're in a slightly different position in that most of their players play in the top club competition in the world. I think a lot of South Sea Islanders qualify for them, too, though I don't know how many are selected in practice. That said, they don't have the same depth that Australia have. Although their top 17 players have, in the past, managed to win big games against Australia, they don't have the same number of quality replacements that Australia have in the event of injury.

From Wiki is one of a number of sports vying for (distant) second place to Association football in the nation's affection. The MORI Sports Tracker consistently reports that rugby league interests around 15% of British adults. It was the fourth most popular team sport in the February 2005 list behind football, cricket and rugby union; 12% of British adults watched it regularly.

- In 2004 the Rugby Football League reported 62,463 registered players (this is a UK-wide figure). However in 2008, the RFL noted that there were only 2,000 registered club players aged 30 or over.