regardless of the individuals selected, england need to perform a whole lot better as a team if they are to have any chance.

More agression in attack and defence, more stucture and speed in our defence and more variation and off the ball work in attack.

As we've seen in the past, a well structured and motivated team can give a better team a beating.

The big issue is that they need to be coached well and we need to get the best out of our resources. Smith so far hasn't shown the quailities to do this.

Picking two forwards, a hooker and a utility on the bench isn't the way to get he most out of our limited resources.

IMO we go with plenty of size and agression in the forwards, play quick short balls around the ruck and mix things up with the sort of balls Graham plays to anther forward on his shoulder (like the one the kiwis scored with last night). It's the only way we will make ground - trying to play it wide will lose us ground!

The aussies are to structured in defence out wide and our attack is too laboured to beat them out wide.

Well that's ALL the Soooperdoooper league coaches condemned then

but you are correct.

Some of the coaching of out "elite" players is woeful and as for tackling/defensive skills









Even our "best" team have to resort to dubious wrestling techniques as a defensive measure.

Slow PTB is ALL they know and slow it down at the ruck.

European RL just cannot compete in the speed around the ruck area.

the kiwis all seem to be man mountains

The only chance we have next week is if we play a "loose game".

We haven't got a hope if we play it tight and get into "an arm wrestle"

That means we have to rely on players with individual flair (Tomkins, Eastmond and Myler) and just hope it comes off.

We may get beat by a bucketload , but we mustn't come away from the game wondering what would have happened if the kids had played.

We got battered in Melbourne last year with an experienced side, so give the kids go.

Maybe it's just my imagination but weren't we calling for faster PTB's before the WC as we feared our "more open" style game would be stiffled by the Aussie wrestling tactics? this year it has flipped on it's head, same old story were always lagging behind the Aussie style of game.

I agree totally with that, playing it through the middle and trying to barnstorm over them will not work, as you say, the 2 half backs will have to have massive games to try and dictate and control the game, but that of course bears another question, are they good enough to do that?

IMO on paper our forwards are the best we have been able to offer for many years. Wether we have the skills to get the best out of them is a different matter.

Where we are at a serious disadvantage is in both Centre berths. We are massively weak here and this is where I feel we'll be most exploited by the skills of Australia and the power of New Zealand.

Kyle Eastmond must play and id play him at either Centre instead of Shenton or Full Back instead of Briscoe.

My team against Australia would be...

1.Briscoe
2. Briscoe
3. Smith
4. Eastmond
5. Hall
6. McGuire
7. Myler
8. Morley
9. Moore
10. Peacock
11. Ellis
12. Burgess
13. Wilkin

14. Roby
15. Graham
16. Carvell
17. Bridge

We'll get completely hammered if we play it loose and rely on flair. We haven't got the flair players to do it vs the Aussies. Look at Super League's top team: their most dangerous and skillful attacking players are Brent Webb and Ali Lauititi, neither of whom can get into the Kiwi squad, and that says it all.

If were relying on our backs and fare to win us the game we will get beat and beat heavily, we need our very good forward pack to try and get on top, just as the Kiwis did, throwing young kids in against a very good Aussie side could do more harm than good, we need some kind of big game experience in the halfs so McGuire has to start, whether Tomkins or Myler player along side him I'm unsure, Id even consider Sinfield at 6 and McGuire at 7

Brent Webb would be in the side but I think he's injured.

Otherwise your point is a valid one.

We don't have the skill to break down the aussies playing like that.

Trying to play llike that for us means silly offloads going to ground and australia punishing the mistakes.

We'd get mashed.

Noble had it right when he kept it tight in an arm wrestle. We had some great tussles and even beat the aussies a few times playing like that.

Spot on.

Also, playing it loose for us means headless chicken, loose passes type of sh*t.

Why would anyone want to put Eastmond in front of Greg Inglis. Hell, Inglis was throwing players around for fun last night!


As for playing loose.....what? Really?




And to suggest Brian Noble had it right...please. You lot got destroyed when he was coaching too!

Rogues Gallery wrote: The only chance we have next week is if we play a "loose game".

We haven't got a hope if we play it tight and get into "an arm wrestle"

That means we have to rely on players with individual flair (Tomkins, Eastmond and Myler) and just hope it comes off.

We may get beat by a bucketload , but we mustn't come away from the game wondering what would have happened if the kids had played.

We got battered in Melbourne last year with an experienced side, so give the kids go.


Rogue's Gallery is undoubtedly correct. Whilst we need our forwards to step up, playing EXTRA forwards in the backs will never work. An 'arm-wrestle' will result in a traditional close 60 minutes followed byt the Aussies running in 30 points at the back-end of the game. Our backs are clearly not as good as the Aus or Kiwi line-ups, but the only way to beat the Aussies is to spend at least 60% of the game in attack, depriving them of time in possession. Tough, it's true, but if you set out just to defend for 80 minutes you might as well not even turn up.

Oh my aching sides.

We'll be lucky to get 5%!!!

on 2nd thoughts your observation is correct regarding 60%

other way round for me. we have to try smother it and play to our strengths which is in the pack. try rattle em early, start like the kiwi's did and get in their faces. if we try out pass em on the fringes we'll get clobbered

seems a strange kind of logic, why not play 12 wingers and a hooker? or 13 props, or the under 11s maybe that will work?

why dont they all cover themselves in ice-cream, we musnt come away from this game wondering what would have happened if the ice-cream covered team had played

we got battered with in melbourne with a team not covered in ice-cream, so lets give Ice cream a go.

i agree with not just trying to defend and playing players out of position is NOT the way to go. but, playing to our strength in the forwards does not necessarily mean playing defensively, quite the opposite, its using them to get us on the front foot which is the only way our back line is gonna have any kind of chance to play. basically our halves are not gonna be creating loads of gaps and chances. we need to try summon from somewhere a high energy defence with quick line speed and in attack play the ball as fast as possible and make yardage from the ruck.

You know what....if england spend 100% of the time attacking, imagine how much they would win by!

1 point!!!

A fluke drop goal

No doubt kicked in the 19th minute....you know....as you do!

1. S Briscoe
2. T Briscoe
3. Ellis
4. Smith
5. Hall
6. Mcquire
7. Tompkins
8. Graham
9. Roby
10. Morley
11. Peacock
12. Wilkin
13. Sinfield

14. Eastmond
15. Carvell
16. Crabtree
17. Burgess

Briscoe
Hall
Briscoe. T (needs more ball and will get it in the centre)
Eastmond
Smith

Sinfield
Tomkins

Morley
Roby
Peacock

Ellis
Burgess
Wilkin

Crabtree
Carvell
Graham
McQuire

If England spent 100% of the time attacking, they would win. The actual score wouldn't matter at all. Is that simple enough for even [iyou [/ito grasp?

Probably not: cue some sub-moronic response.

I'm not sure that a young Alex Murphy and Lewis Jones at halfback could make our threequarters a serious threat.



Yet again we have a pack that is much vaunted but misses tackles up the middle and does nothing much to help the backs by providing dummy runners and hard running out wide. We also have a backline which is shambolic to say the least.

I do understand the idea of England playing it tight to keep the score down, and if the weather is in our favour (i.e. p*ssing it down and cold) this may be the best option. However, even though that may be the sensible thing to do, I for one would prefer to see England lose by going all out and at least showing they can play the game.

We need all these youngsters to get over their 'nerves' and try to enjoy themselves with the ball.

Things I'd change......

Put someone who can attack at fullback. Briscoe is Wellens revisited. I'd put Smith there and Ellis in the centres for size. I'd also put Eastmond in the centres as he at least is some kind of threat, and have Roby and three props on the bench. I don't want Lee Smith in the team at all, but he's in the squad and he's a cocky git who likes the big games and can actually beat a man when running the ball. He'll never be a top quality centre in a million years as he's simply not big enough.

Danny McGuire needs to stop hiding behind Sinfield and put himself front and centre as he did against NZ last year - demand the ball, push Sinfield out of the way if he has to. Sinfield should be playing outside McGuire - his role should be as kicker and as a runner/tackler who helps make overlaps out wide. As soon as you put him into the backline as a playmaker he slows it down and McGuire goes into his shell. The only other way to possibly make this happen would be to move McGuire to scrum half and bring in Tomkins. I agree that a Myler/Tomkins partnership could be disastrous for the lads at this stage.

Otherwise I don't think there's a lot that can be done with this side. Having a go at Tony Smith is fair enough, but without the troops nobody could do much more IMO, and England's outside backs as a unit are worse than I've seen in 30 years.