Start a punch up early doors. Maybe even get a man sent off. It's always worked.

Discuss.

Two strategies

1). Score more points
or
2). Concede less points.

Sadly those days are gone and we can;t intimadate anybody anymore.

Best chance is to kick deep, chase hard, keep them in their half and DO NOT TURN THE BALL OVER!

Someone on here a while back said;

"Back in the old days teams would go at it all hammer and tong, and wouldn't score until someone got something right. Nowadays teams go at it all hammer and tong and won't score until someone gets something wrong."

...or words to that effect. Basically skill levels used to be low with little in the way of a game plan that chances came when players stopped trying to kick each other and played a bit of rugby. Nowadays teams are so skilled and so well drilled chances only come from mistakes. This is at its most true on the international. If England can do it they have to have an immaculate game with as fewer errors as possible.

Having said this, a little bit of fisticuffs always spices things up a little.

Remember what happened when Stuart Field met Willie Mason? Not sure it's a great idea!!

Much better to start trouble (minor) at pivotal moments (if it's close). That's what Australia do when they are under the cosh against us but we seem to fail to do so.

Yes. I also remember what happened immediately after when Jamie Peacock got hold of Mason.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/6112502.stmIt worked out okay for Great Britain in that match[/url

Yeah i also remember the result as well.
We always come together as a team after apunch up, and come over that "awe" of Australia.

Bribe the ref seems the best option so far

or whinge about him & complain untill he is to scared to penalise us. (Sorry the opposition have got in first)

Sorry, but as much as I want us to, I just can't see it happening, the Aussies don't appear to be as good as in recent years, and we have a pretty strong squad, BUT, they have a coach and we don't.

I honestly think the main difference between the two teams is the quality of the men in charge, don't be surprised if they score 50.

Tony smith is a phenominal coach and we still couldnt stick it too em, its not as important as the class of the players on offer

A mass brawl at the first scrum has gone out of fashion these days. Lucky for us really.

What is this belief based on?

I'm always told Australians are super RL players and the poms aren't. That their fitness/conditioners have magic powers and that their coaches were sent here by Angels. Am I not right?

Or is it just that over here, it's proportionality a far, far bigger sport, produce a larger number of talented athletes and they have massive strength in depth. Don't forget the NRL is the BEST COMPETITION IN THE WORLD.... which actually only means that its a bit better than only one other main comp in the World.

Play like our llives depends on it. Strive for every inch, every yard, play by play, set by set.

Play with the determination and fighting spirit that has helped our ancestors win wars in the past and protect the freedom of this great country.

Play to the gameplan.

Bit of luck as well.

Very interesting this bandwagon of saying we don’t have a coach

Watching the Wales game and some of the movement of the ball and the lines that the team were running, my reaction was that they aren’t playing particularly well as individuals but they looked a much better coached team than recent years

Best coached team we've had in recent years was when David Waite was in charge.

Is this the David Waite that selected Richard Horne on the wing and put half a dozen loose forwards in the team?

Make so much noise that the Australians feel the fear and forget how to play, watched some old videos of games at Wembley ans the atmosphere was electric

Watch Australia's tries against NZ again - not the ones involving poor defence but the other ones. Look at the execution of the moves - fast, accurate passing, everbody knowing what their role in the play is.

That's not down to Tim Sheens being an uber coach. Its down to the quality of the players across the field. Phil Gould used to say the same about coaching Origin - its not about teaching players anything, its about working on combinations and gameplans. Compare to Tony Smith last time in Oz having to hold extra training sessions to work on second man plays. Our players by comparison probably do need coaching.

McNamara may or may not be a great coach, but he's added some quality players to a team that otherwise would look bad even on paper, and he's made sure the team have had more preparation time and training than previous coaches have managed to get pushed through. He's also put in place the Knights idea as a stepping stone for younger players.

Maybe he'd be better suited to an England 'manager' type role, but IMO the guy deserves real credit for putting things in place that will stand us in good stead for the future. The problem in the end rests with the quality of players available, as our continued failure under coaches going back years shows.

We've got to do the basics well. We've got to dominate possession and therefore, field position. No penalties and we must execute well, take all chances.

That would be great.

I watched highlights of the 1992 world cup final and the atmosphere was amazing! I was there as a 9 year old and no wonder I fell in love with the game being involved in occasions like that.

I'd love this Saturday to be a similar sort of atmosphere.

Based purely on my opinion, which, like yours Mr Booster, means absolutely nothing.

Yes, I was one of the 73,631 too. We did have a great chance that time - a relatively strong team. Sadly, we didn't do it then - minor defence mis-positioning by John Devereux was exploited by the brilliant Steve Renouf and it was all over in an instant.

That was a great day. I remember my Dad bought me and him seats in the Olympic Gallery which hung off the old roof. I wasnt allowed to tell my Mum how much they cost and I was sat 2 seats away from Michael Parkinson. I was 13