Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best

Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best

I think that's true, unless we can also move up several notches. Obviously it's easier to see Australia having a lot more to give than it is England. The main hope in that respect is that we have a couple of world class forwards to come back. I'd like to hope that we could sort out the half backs too, but that's folorn because Sinfield is an immovable object thus boxing in the whole setup around that predetermined selection fact. Verdict on Sinfield? He did OK. I could have told you that before the game, as could every other armchair pundit. Next game? He'll do OK. And the one after. That's what Sinfield does. He plays OK, more reliably and in more positions than anyone else in SL. Just what you need in a club side.

Probably our most naturally gifted player but still lacking self-belief. However how many times do we attack with pace & depth a la Wigan to give the 3/4 a chance? Once for our first try that I can remember.

If we are going with McIlorum for Ireland, I'd still start Roby and then use McIlorum for the last 20 of the first half and the first 20 of the second half

I don't get why people are so obsessed with his aggression

Because there is not much more to his game. With no other specialist hooker in the squad there is little real alternative. But I agree, those thinking he will 'rough up' the Aussies are naïve in the extreme.

Kallum Watkins was playing opposite Greg Inglis, the superman of Australian Rugby League who was supposed to tear us a new hole

Inglis made no line breaks and just one tackle break (Watkins had three tackle breaks). Inglis came up with one great play which could not be attributed to Watkins

I thought Watkins did just fine and will grow into the tournament if he is given that right centre spot as his own

Sinfield as a club player may be every Leeds' fans wet-dream. As an international, he's not good enough.

Westwood is a liability. Every time we built momentum, this Troglodyte has a brain-fart.

Rangi looked stifled and not able to play his game as an X-factor player. Put him with Widdop.

Sinfield was one of our best players yesterday and probably our best. So that must make (most of) the other 16 less than not good enough?

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best'" The thing those ratings confirm is what we could all see - no impact from the bench and a big weakening of the team when the bench was used.

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the Australian rating of the English players www.nrl.com/player-ratings-austr ... e_featured George Burgess, Kevin Sinfield and Sam Tomkins rated as England’s best'" The thing those ratings confirm is what we could all see - no impact from the bench and a big weakening of the team when the bench was used.

Exactly! Coupled with the inevitable club bias and you could predict pretty much all the guff within this thread.

I hope I'm wrong but I still think there is over-optimism abounding. My reasons include:

Australia were not keyed up but still managed to organise themselves to wrest control off England;
England have a weaker team, especially pack, than they had in many of the maulings of recent years (I agree with Brian Noble when he "alluded to" the shortage of "DNA"icon_wink.gif;
We need to cut out silly mistakes and penalties. That is something we learned the hard way to do over many years but they look as though they are slipping back in (lack of "DNA"?);
Whilst the centres were OK defensively yesterday - they weren't really tested by being run at in structured attacking plays. When they are, I believe they'll make positional decisions and concede tries;
Even with Graham and O'Loughlin back we'll still be short on the bench. Is O'Loughlin really the dream answer anyway?
All in all, IMO Australia could still beat us by a recod score on any particular day. Whether they will is a different matter as is whether we'll get chance to play them again in this competition. We ceratinly need to beat Ireland and hope Fiji do.

England had a game plan, and it proved itself in the first 20 minutes. Sinfield , as captain is there to ensure that game plan is adhered to.
It wasn't and the sight of the great british tradition of head down, back side up, one plunge took over and the game changed. He is responsible for that.
England have 2 of the most lethal finishers in the game on the wings yet they had to spend most of the game coming inside to get a run as the game plan was ignored.
The Aussies did what they had to do without breaking a sweat and the helping hand of England. When they become fully up to speed, then the opposition are in for a torrid time.
The BIG question is will England learn from this or go back to the "I'm a star I know everything" that seems to affect some players?

If the match is allowed to be another ' Wrestlemania ' as it was yesterday by the refferee ( thats why I dont bother watching the NRL anymore ) then quite simply England need to offload as they did in the 1 st 20 minutes ( mostly Chris Hill, did we offload again after he went off? ) , the game was slow and nulified Roby from a quick ptb which didnt give Chase or Tomkins any space

The Aussies were OK, nothing special, good at a structured attack but nothing to be scared of

Biggest issue to England beating them in a WC Final, if of course they can beat the Kiwi's is the reffereeing, the lying on was just ridiculous , the number of times we had players ( aussies ) tackling twice, as in tackling part of the body then letting go and grabbing the player again was just plain crazy, it was like watching union

Also it seems the latest aussie actic is to ' roll away ' directly where the ptb is, this should be an automatic penalty , what is annoying is why do they need to resort to this type of ' cheating ' ?

It seems every few years they find a new way of spoiling the sport as a spectacle

was worried about the bench we had yesterday and so it proved, when the interchanges came on, mossop and t.burgess, thats when the aussies started to get on top of us

hopefully be a stringer bench next time, with graham and oloughlin added to the team.

the widdop interchange was abit of a waste of time, tom burgess made some bad mistakes too, crabtree would of been a great option if picked!

overall though all said we was not far off and after the turbulent week before, better than expected.

Overall I'm not too disappointed. That Aussie team are beatable - certainly not the invincible Kangaroos we've seen in the past.

Our pack did well - it's not often we've seen England/GB packs in recent years gain territory and stop the Australians making easy yards. Physically we are more than a match - however, that comes at a cost and the Burgess brothers and Westwood all bring with them the penalties and errors that the Aussies will pounce on. If they that aspect can be cleared up retaining good territory suddenly becomes far easier. Tom Burgess and Mossop were the only ones I'd question - hopefully Graham and O'Loughlin will solve that problem.

As for Charnley not chasing back hard or looking 'off', I thought the wingers and centres did a great job of relieving work for the forwards and took the ball in well. The 'touch' decision was difficult - borderline but I didn't think he was out - and ffs Hicks, are you an Englishman or not you muppet!?!! Anyway, Charley chased back plenty hard enough if you watch it again - he couldn't have got there any quicker ffs.
One negative, I thought both wingers were guilty of getting sucked inside too often in defence - basic wing play dictates holding your position and not giving your opposite number an open channel.

Overall good. We stood up to them well and when we closed them down quickly in defence they didn't make many yards. With a little more territory and fewer errors we'll be a lot closer than 8 points. The halfback debate could run and run but everyone did well yesterday. I'd like to have seen McIlorum interchange for Roby rather than Sinfield though.

Didn't think much of Perenara and said as soon as he was appointed he'd give us nothing. He proved himself in 2011 with a poor performance and by disallowing that perfectly good Briscoe try, and nothing had changed yesterday - we didn't get any 50/50 calls I can remember.

While discussing the negatives of the England bench, I think it's worth also giving credit to the Aussie bench. Parker and particularly Fifita lifted them massively - couple that with our replacements having a negative impact, that's where the momentum changed.

The biggest difference for me, as always, was that their basic skill levels are better than ours;

Passing - The timing and accuracy of their passing is spot on 90% of the time - the ball is always at the right height and perfect to run onto. This enables their runners to steam onto the ball at 100%. Our passing is only about 70% accurate - it's only minor, but often the ball is slightly too high/low, or slightly behind the man - this means our runners naturally are just that slight but more cautious when running onto the ball.

Catching - In the occasions (the 10%) when the Aussies do throw a bad pass, it's still rarely dropped. Our runners get bad passes more often, and also drop it more often.

These slight differences in skill levels have a massive knock on effect to every other facet of the game. It helps them get a roll on, and means they can be 100% confident in their structures and set moves. Plus it gives them more possesion, which tires us out, and leads to more mistakes and penalties - and that's what killed us yesterday, but it all goes back to those key skills.

But now england have little chance of finishing top of the group and thus being 'real' champions.

From the NRL.com link above:

"Kevin Sinfield – The England skipper kicked well, led his team's tackle count and set up a try in a quality performance in a losing side."

As to game plan, how can a man stop lesser players dropping the ball, getting tired, giving away penalties, etc?

One thing is absolutely clear to me - if the other 16 England players played to Sinfield's standard yesterday - had his fitness, tackling, handling skills, etc - we'd have won by a country mile. Fact is most of the others can't play for 80 minutes and most only 20 minute bursts.

They are the facts. Dress up your heroes and villains as you wish but there's no getting away from the fact that others, not Sinfield, were not good enough on the day.

Sums it up perfectly for me. Physically and mentally we can more or less match them, but they're still ahead on the finer details.

Watched it back and Westwood did better then i gave him credit for - just needs to clean his act up because a coupe of his pens killed us.

The ref though did give them every 50-50 call. There was one where the Aussies dropped it in the tackle, but he ruled a strip and they subsequently scored. To beat them we need the bounce of the ball too...

The score line does not lie.

We showed we had a system to beat the Aussies

We went away from it.

Sinfield is the leader and it is HIS responsibility to ensure that the team play to the plan, they stopped, and therefore he failed.

I agree with statement that perhaps others were not up to Sinfield standards but then I have never rated him than being a slighter better than average club player, not international standard.

So it shows, as if it wasn't already known, that with a few exceptions the players in this country are still behind the Aussies , but please don't let myth, wishful thinking and blinkers lead anyone to believe that England are not the best RL team on the planet.

The evidence is in the score line.

Sinfield is hardly the problem. His kicking and passing kept us in it.
Having him tackling at scrum half allowed the forwards to do more.

I don't think we went off game plan as much as started making errors.

But mostly, we could have had tries from Charnley and Burgess but for an inch or decision in our favour.
Not the time to pick the team apart. I thought on the whole England were good.

The Score line of 8 points when people where talking 20 - 30 points.

In the end I'm more likely to believe an Aussie reporters assessment of the players than some of the bias on here.

Plenty that can be changed. Not seen enough of Widdop to know if he can play alongside Sinfield.

One thing that is obvious is everyone has to be a threat.
The centres cannot just be solid they need to impose themselves on the game and give the wingers something to work with.
Wingers need to look for something everyone they run the ball back.
Hill and George where great. Mossop and tom to be replaced.
Ferres surprised me. He looks great.
Roby needs to be spelled with burrow and really go for the gaps whenever they appear.
Westwood cut out the penalties.

We need 4 (not 2 or 4) subs that are there to be used for a tactical reason.

See number 6 in the top table.