No truer word has been spoken.

I'm think Lyon is retired from rep footy. He'd be a shoe-in otherwise. He's got better with age! I think it'll be Inglis and Jennings at centre. Wouldn't be surprised to see Taufua as one of the wingers.

Since the modern game relies increasingly on physical prowess rather than subtlety & skill I fear that until we have an off season that matches that down under we will fall further & further behind our antipodean rivals.
The current proposals for the game over here - on the basis of my current understanding of them - will serve to accelerate our inferiority.
We need fewer higher intensity games to enthuse spectators not more mediocrity.

We should try to bomb him to death if we ever get near enough to their 40 metre line to do this but our chase (not Chase) had better be good 7 in big enough numbers to stop him before he builds up a head of steam.
He's the new Marcus Bai but probably bigger, faster & with a better step!
The new improved Bai.

Don't think we should try the 'Burrow off the bench' option.
I'd maybe try (in the group games) bringing Hardaker on at FB and pushing Tomkins up the halves in the 2nd half just like Leeds did with Harris & St Hilaire in the late 90's.

Burrow shouldn't get in the 17 IMO. If we're playing two hookers they should be Roby and McIlorum.

If we're to spring a surprise and beat the Aussies it means England need the game of their lives. We need to be very disciplined and make very few errors. I'm not sure SL has been the right stage for preparing some of the England players for the step up needed to beat Australia. Playing Hock is fair enough but he's good for some penalties and mistakes that will ease the pressure on the opposition. It's a gamble.

England's defence outwide will let them down against australia. The forward pack can hold it's own, the backline is decent. But give australia 6 tackles in englands 30m zone and 7 times out of 10 they'll post points.

The last time I can recall england holding their own in defence against australia, in a game which wasn't a dead rubber for the aussies was the opening of the 2004 tri nations at the etihad, last min craig wing try.

If you think back over all the games against the aussies since then, the games we've done ok have been dead rubbers for the aussies, almost all the other games we've been exposed defensively.

I wouldn't have hock on at all. Too prone to brain farts. England literally can't afford any stupid offloads or penalties gifting the aussies position. People saying they need to ''give it a go'' that's the wrong way to play it IMO. If england try and open up in attack australia will smother it and shut it down. They'll pick out the runners and be up their s forcing errors. As soon as we start giving australia easy field position we are on a hiding to nothing. England need to go in with the mentality that australia aren't going to get any sets in our red zone throughout the entire game. Of course australia can score long range, no problem. But as soon as they get near our line it's like a sieve. That means we need to [irelentlessly[/iget up the field, put in decent kicks, chase well and give no penalties away. The least we can do is try and take it the distance. You stay within less than 6 points and you never know how the ball might bounce or if one of aussies [ihuman beings[/i (they aren't super human) cracks and comes up with an error.

A player like Hock is going to f*ck that up. He'll pull an offload out of nowhere taking us 30 metres further up the field. His next contributios will be to piggy back them up the field with a dumb penalty, which they most likely score from. Unfortunatly the good and bad don't cancel each other out because of how clinical australia are. Hocks good and bad combine to f*ck us over.

Try and stay with them. Keep it tight. Go the distance.


That's been the mantra since the early 90s and it's got us precisely nowhere. If we're going to lose I'd at least rather do it with a bit of a bang.

"On the day I day I'll say 'at least I f**king tried', that's the only eulogy I need."

Meh.

The main thing we need is to have fire from the first minute, show belief we can win and dont stand off them and show too much respect which is what we have done in recent times.We have Just tried to play it too safe and watch them to see what they have got, and by the time we find out exactly what they do have we are 20 points down and its game over.

Points people have made about our backs being inferior to theirs and us being exploited out wide are bang on but we do have more potential out there to bag points than in recent years if the game plan can be executed.Our pack again on paper looks more than a match but i too will reserve judgment on them until it starts proving it can mix it on the pitch.

I don't suppose it matters what ''mantra'' we have, whichever way you look at it, we lose. For the good of the world cup though, i'd like to try and keep it close, and i think if we go out to ''give it a go'', theres a bigger chance of getting shallacked then trying to play percentages and it will be yet another national embarassment to add to the now growing list. That's not to say we won't get thrashed trying to leep it tight, i'm just going on the balance of probability here. I mean, come on, we are not going to out attack australia. They have a plethora of plays that our players have probably never even seen. Hell, their playbooks are probably 20 years ahead of ours, we have paper cups and string they have apple iphones.

Arguably our best recent run of results against the aussies came under noble, who was an exponent of the keep it tight mantra. Who knows, if we'd had the backline then that we had now we may have done a bit better than we did.

Our pack on paper looks decent. But time and time again in the past against the aussies, we are dominated. They win the collision, their line speed is far ahead of anything we can consistently muster and our forwards look spent on 60 minutes whereas theres still look fresh.

Our best recent run of results against Australia? An achievement akin to winning the World's Tallest Dwarf award. Noble achieved what every other coach in the last 20 years achieved: nowt. Only with less style.

If we take the attitude that we'll lose anyway then we might as well not bother turning up. We should always try to win.

Lets also not forget that Australia do have probably one of the most settled and Outstanding spines of a team you will ever see and have had it for a number of years now.The combinations of Slater,Thurston,Cronk and Smith have dominated NSW for many years not just England.Chuck in the best that NSW has to offer to play around those players and we are always going to be up against it no matter who we have.

Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"Ask yourself why Charnley is the only winger to score 30+ tries in the last two seasons. Watkins hardly gave him a pass worthy of the name in the autumn internationals. Plus Goulding's defence is better. Also re Matty Smith. He is the TOP scrum half this year. Both half backs should be able to kick. Chase cannot play to structure and Widdop has had a poor season when fit. Most people think that because he plays for Melbourne he must be good, but don't realise he was a work in progress there. Anyone could play alongside Cronk, Slater and Smith and look good. He wasn't really asked to do a lot for Melbourne. IMO Ratchford is a better player. I agree that Mossop has generally had a poor year and that Crabtree should have been nailed on.'" It seems not only Melbourne (who offered a 4 year deal) think Widdop is a class act but also St George to the tune of $2 million. www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/w ... 6624417889

Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"Ask yourself why Charnley is the only winger to score 30+ tries in the last two seasons. Watkins hardly gave him a pass worthy of the name in the autumn internationals. Plus Goulding's defence is better. Also re Matty Smith. He is the TOP scrum half this year. Both half backs should be able to kick. Chase cannot play to structure and Widdop has had a poor season when fit. Most people think that because he plays for Melbourne he must be good, but don't realise he was a work in progress there. Anyone could play alongside Cronk, Slater and Smith and look good. He wasn't really asked to do a lot for Melbourne. IMO Ratchford is a better player. I agree that Mossop has generally had a poor year and that Crabtree should have been nailed on.'" It seems not only Melbourne (who offered a 4 year deal) think Widdop is a class act but also St George to the tune of $2 million. www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/w ... 6624417889

I'm not proposing we don't try to win. I just don't think selecting hock and going into all out attack mode is the best thing to do. I'm not saying the noble thing was a beacon of awesome england achievment either, but our best recent results against the aussies came under him.

You can talk all day about our half backs, we don't have any good enough at international level so we all know why sin fields in the team, his leadership quality etc, I don't get Farrell, too small I would rather have ferris from Huddesfield don't rate Farrell he over hyped and no more than a goog club player IMO. As for hardaeker he's the best all round full back in superleague but Tompkins offers the X factor, think the rest is about right, I would have had Crabtree in stead of the burgess bro who played for Bradford last year and don't like mm, burrow on bench for me also offers a cover and X factor for when roby goes off,

Anyone who thinks england have even a hope, of just getting close to australia should watch the NRL grand final from this morning.

Incredible.

Doesn't matter what mantra england play with. In fact the thought of england ''giving it a go'' with players like sinfield and chase and expecting to break down the type of defence on show in the nrl is laughable.

England will be lucky to score more than a couple of tries when they play australia.

Have to agree....

I certainly would not have Sinfield at SO. Hooker perhaps with Roby off the bench ( no room in there for Burrow either IMO ) ... Hardaker has to be FB with Tomkins in the halves, the latter being hopeless on the bombs and one on one tackles but the best bet of breaking defence at half back

Mcnamara decided on his structure in 2011 and he's sticking to his guns. Tomkins will be at fullback, sinfield at SO and chase at SH and england will come up woefully short. He could play hardaker at fullback and tomkins at SO, england's line up may look more exciting but they still come up short.

Come up short of what? Winning the world cup? or improving their reputation?

The Kiwis have done it twice on the Aussies when they were also expected to take a hammering from them. Surely if England can at least make the final at the expense of the Kiwis they will have come a lot longer way than people thought? and therefore gain some considerable credit for it?

If the Aussies are as indestructable as some believe, then what can England do exactly to have some degree of credit?

Just out of interest - does anyone know how many of the 24 man squad have represented England Academy against the Australian Schoolboys? We often hear about how the youngsters are more successful and how they'll come through and make us more competitive but it doesn't happen. This seems to be in part to the intensity of the respective leagues, and the transition into the first teams.

Thought it would be interesting to know

Whilst not disagreeing with your overall point, out of the five or six best players on show yesterday, only one was Australian.
The key to beating the Australians lies in how you approach the game and tactics are not the where the answer lies. Quite simply, you have to rough them up, it is the only way we or the kiwis have beaten them in the last twenty five years.

England need to make the final and be competitive in the final. Bottom line. They need to make a game of it in the decider. That means that the game isn't effectively over going into the last 15 minutes or before.

Considering england are on home soil, the kiwis recent record on these shores and the fact that other than the kiwis theres no other serious competition to be australia opponents in the final, simply making the final isn't enough.

What do you mean, 'rough them up'?

England need to approach the games as a top super league side would the playoffs. Completed sets, good kicking game, no silly penalties. Forcing drop outs close to the line. They need to try and win the territorial battle as much as possible. They actually managed a game like this against the kiwis in the 2011 4 nations decider to get to the final, though i take the point it was a poor kiwi team. But had england not taken such a disciplined approach they would have lost the game, it was weight of field position and territory that slowly wore the kiwis down.

If england go out to ''attack...give it a go! let rangi and sinfield terrorise them!'' they'll end up with dumb rugby, mistakes, aussie field position and lots of aussie tries.