I don't think many Bulls' fans would argue with that - how much better would the Bulls be with the three Burgesses in the squad?

Well, now the dust has settled, and McNamara has conclusively proved he can coach. He made tough and controversial decisions but the indisputable fact is that England were better than NZ; we had a game plan to win, we neutralized their main threats and, indisputably, were the better team on the day.

It was a heartbreaking way to exit but nobody can understate McNamara's performance in first, a highly competitive effort against the best team on the planet, and then the NZ effort. For the first time in a long time, sat watching the NZ game I felt that we were more than equal to them and had we not slipped up in the last second, then nobody could have begrudged what would have been a thoroughly deserved win.

I know the reason for the thread, but it must have been galling for the anti-McNamara trolls, who in truth know just how good we were, and will have been the only ones outside NZ cheering as the final play went down.

Well done McNamara and the team, we are out, but don't deserve to be, and did the country proud. Nobody could have done better.

exactly how I see it, well said FA.

Couldn't agree more!

If it wasn't for the Gurgess tackle at the end it would class as the best example of nullifying SBW I have witnessed.

I was actually really impressed with how Ferres stood up to SBW. Almost every SBW attack was met head on by Ferres, even in attack he ran hard and made pretty good meters. Was one of the best games I have seen him play.

I do disagree that the best team lost. These teams we're evenly matched. Both teams had chances to score but the game was equal, even until the last set of 6. There we're times when England we're in control, but there were also times when the NZ team kept us in our own half (1st quarter of the second half).

The England pack is probably the best on the international stage, but the backs are still a long way behind the AUS and NZ teams. Hall is probably the only player that you would pick above the competitors. Until we have stronger backs, we will always struggle to kill games off.

Backs? You can't have the best in every single position in the squad, but in Tomkins and Hall we have two of the very top echelon. And unless you count Hall failing to take the interception, I would say that the decisive moments in the game were the failure of Sinfield to kick for touch in the last minute, and coming out of the line for the try, plus of course the high shot by George Burgess. I thought our backs did better than NZ's. I thought that NZ considrably got the better end of the decisions in the game, particularly in the first hour, and of course the teams were evenly matched; it's what you want, but not what we've come to expect. A NZ world champ team, with SBW in it, and we think we are evenly matched. What else does McNamara have to do?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking Mcnamara. I am probably a doubter of his abilities, but the game was a classic. Probably the best game I have ever seen. It's just a shame there had to be a loser. When we we're on top in the first half, I think we needed to score more. We just can't seem to find the killer touch too often in 1 game.

If he does stay in his post as England coach, I expect to see a lot of changes for the future. Too many players let themselves down during this tournament. His leadership qualities are going to be tested further. Our backs do show potential, but they are not dangerous enough going forward, and they always look a little suspect when defending. It's a shame the likes of Atkins and Watkins aren't playing for NRL clubs, would do their game the world of good.

If I we're to judge Englands performance in the tournament as a whole, I'd have to say we played superb for 79 mins against NZ, we played well for 30 mins against Aus, but the victories against the 'lesser' nations were uninspiring. Still plenty of room for improvement.

The only thing I'd add is that no team plays top of its game all the time, not us, not Aus, nobody. The trick is to play really well when you really need to, make sure you do the business when you don't play well, and peak at the right time.

And one good sign of a good coach is to be the better team (or if you like, at least equal) despite, if you are right, having inferior backs.

Best post of the thread. The spin some are putting on two home defeats to Australia and New Zealand, despite England having a superior pack and clearly the best player of the tournament, is simply silly.

Yet they lost???



And you know this how, exactly? Nobody whatsoever?

Stop dressing up opinion as fact FA.

The problem is that there are some people on here that have been strangely off with their views, and, of course FA who was talking mince as usual. The usually sensible Bullseye is actually trying to suggest that home advantage does not make much difference FFS. What a lot of nonsense that is. How can playing at home NOT be an advantage? Your conditions, your crowd, your ability to set up the pitches how you want them to be.

FA, as usual, shows that despite his undeniable love of the game of RL, he still has learned nothing about it whatsoever. It was a failed competition for England RL, despite the wealth of talent they had available and no FA spin will paper over the cracks.

In fairness, I bet there were a few Aussies that were ing themselves too.

What, you are SUCH a dolt that you think "Nobody could have done better" is a claim of FACT?



OMFG. Your skull would give a neutron star a good run for thickness. FACT.

Er, whose post contained the terms 'conclusively', 'indisputable fact', 'indisputably'?

I think England’s starting 13 was a match for any team in the competition, a bit weaker off the bench. I also think McN did as well as any English coach could in the circumstances. I would have preferred Wayne Bennett or Craig Bellamy but I don’t think they applied. Where I believe we fell short was the lack of real big match experience, particularly amongst the backs. We had ample opportunity to kill off the game & with a bit more killer instinct we should have beaten both teams.

Pretty much. He didn't succeed because we lost to both sides. Nor can he be described as a failure as in the context of the last 20 years we performed with merit and both games were good games, particularly against the Kiwis. And who else wants the job?

I would not bother about it. You are indeed correct,of course, but this is typical FA tactics that you have clearly seen through. He is a joke poster. Nobody takes him seriously whatsoever.

Let him have his moment. It comforts him.

What do you mean. "Er"? Are you having a senior moment? The specific thing ME complained about which is the specific thing i replies to was my comment he quoted, I said
"[iNobody could have done better[/i"
and he replied, to that claim,
"[iStop dressing opinion up as fact[/i".

regardless of that, my reply made it 100% clear what i was responding to.

The comment was not aimed at any of the phrases you mention, so you've got involved for no reason, and just look like you can't read properly.

Of course, in the case of ME, if I said the game was indisputably held at Wembley, he would dispute it, and anyway considers his opinion that McNamara can't coach to be indisputable fact not opinion, so he's the last one to talk

Translation:

I don't know what to say. I look pretty stupid now, so I'll go [iad hominem[/i as per, and hope nobody notices what I did there.

Oops!



.

Indeed.


mystic eddie ought to be a shoo-in. He has all the answers, and we would clearly never lose again.

Are you free, ME?

I think home advantage is overplayed. It didn’t do us much good in the last world cup over here when we got spanked by a record score by the Kiwis. Against Australia I don’t think we’ve won a test series at home since the 1930s (Over 80 years FFS!). We’ve never won a Tri Nations on either side of the world. I’d say that more important factors are at play such as quality of the players and the coach.

If Bennett/Bellamy/Maguire/Waterhouse were to want the England job I’d have them in a flash. I suspect though that McBanana got the job because he was the best option at the time. Whether he still is I don’t know. Maybe now England have proved they’re not the crap easy beats that some said they were if might persuade some other coaches to apply.

You know, the irony of this post, I am sure, will not just be noticed by me.

BTW FA, did you see that Danny Brough, Man of Steel, has just been picked in a World 13 side at half back? Still not good enough for your buddy Steve though eh?

The sad thing is FA, that with that pool of players at his disposal (and the ones he overlooked of course), that I reckon anyone could have coached them to wins over the might of Ireland, Fiji and France and lose to the other two.

Hardly an achievement.

Made the country proud indeed.

Think you’re being a bit harsh there Eddie. I was proud of the performance England put in at the weekend. The last 40 seconds weren’t what we wanted but that shouldn’t overshadow what was a good performance. If they can play at that level more consistently we’ll win an international tournament at some stage soon.