SaintsFan - the bigger losses were Hayne, and in particular Thurston, who is by some distance the best playmaker in the world. Of the forwards probably the biggest loss was Scott, who is a fantastic prop.

Australia looked poor against NZ in part because they lost DCE and Inglis during the game. How would England look if they lost Tomkins and Widdop during the game in terms of attack?

England's defence was really bad, and the ball retention awful in the first half. If they 'defend' like that Australia could play their team from the second half vs NZ and still win comfortably.

The Kiwis were too big for the Aussies on the weekend. You can't face man mountains without props. It's difficult enough trying to front up against them when you've got your first choice pack on the field. The Kiwis knew they could make the yardage and they were pummeling them in the second half. I'd say we'll never have a better chance but I've said that enough times over the years to know that you can't take anything for granted against the Australians. They are the ultimate big game team.

England have named an unchanged side for the Australia game. O'loughlin mustn't have recovered and whitehead must have slept with McNamara's missus.

What's the point in taking lockers if he's not going to play?

Mcbanana madness

part of me hopes we get smashed in the next 2 games so he gets the sack

Lockers needed time off to rest and recoup to get his body sorted. His body Is totally knackered and he's in danger of finishing his career early.

McBanana did the same thing with Widdop in the last comp. Don.t think Joel Tomkins should be playing against OZ not quite good enough in my opinion at this level, prefer to give Westerman another chance though.

I don't think our Backrow was good enough against Samoa. I don't think Joel Tomkins Should have even gone but to be fair the isn't much other options. Is 100% play whitehead before him Saturday.

I'm not sure Farrell is big enough at international level. He's a awesome super league player and always a threat with the ball for Wigan but I don't think he's international class player.

Westerman was massively massively out of his depth against Samoa and I'm 100% convinced he will be for the next two games if selected.

If Australia name the same pack of forwards as on Saturday then they are there for the taking. I suspect Sheens may put Klemmer in the side, which would give them a bit more size and make them tougher to run over, but even then I think we'd still have a clear advantage up front.

That won't mean anything, though, if our ball control is anything like it was at the weekend; we'll need to go set-for-set with them if we want to take advantage of our superior size. If we turn over a lot of ball then that size will become a weakness. The game being in Melbourne should help - it probably won't be anything like as hot as it was at Lang Park.

I don't think our pack is as good as we think.

It's a tremendous front row, but the back row isn't as good as it has been over recent years. O'Loughlin would make a big difference (apparently the option is still there to slot him into the team later in the week if he recovers).

They are missing Wilkin in that back row

The burgess bros and graham are top class and proven at the top level. The rest ain't so good tbh.

Id certainly have Whitehead in the back row above Tomkins. Farrell certainly lacks the size for international level rugby IMO but does run good lines so Id take him as the second option.

Perhaps LMS was hard done to, not being taken as a back row?
I've been critical of his inconsistency, but perhaps he could be adding a real bit of power to the England back row.

We don't know that he isn't plus there's still games after this one.

If he doesn't play and we lose then we basically out

Do you think????

Or will it be a case of NZ deciding who to play?

True. But it's equally right to say if he does play and we lose we're out...or if he doesn't play and we win we still have to more games etc. The point being that he's there as the current best LF available to us and is expected to be available at some point during the competition. There is no one else who could have gone in his place who, frankly, would make a difference in this game anyway so I'm not sure what we lose by him being there even if he can't play, especially given his undoubted influence around the camp. I don't think it's over stating the case to say our chances of a win are significantly improved with a fit O'Loughlin in the team on Sunday, so it's certainly worth having him there to at least make that a possibility. However, I hope that fact doesn't push the management into taking a gamble on playing him if he isn't fit. Unlike SL, an unfit player would get exposed at this level. That's the only negative I can see regarding him being there tbh and I hope McNamara makes the right decision.

why?

Assuming NZ beat Samoa, and Aus beat Samoa, we would need to beat NZ to get to 4 points with Aus. Depending on points difference, we would be in the final (unless the Aussies decide to vote on appointing themselves into the final). NZ would undoubtedly prefer to play England than Aus in the final, so I would expect them to field a weaker team against us.

Because we won't beat the Aussies or the kiwis and the Aussies will put a big score on Samoa

That would be very interesting to see what they would do. There are probably some that would say they'd back themselves again against this Aussie side so nothing to lose either way?

I don't think Lms was ever in contention and rightly so.

I've been a critic, but he'd have faired better than Jomkins,

Just got back from my jols. What a game that was. England really expressed themselves in that 1st half then remembered in the 2nd half that we're a nation of conservatism and reigned our sense of adventure right back in, to mess it up.

That was a try imo however, they blew it for themselves. That said, if we turn up and play like that again in both halfs, we can beat the Kiwis...not sure they can do it by more than 10 though.