I think Sutcliffe has all the ability to make an international class half but Im not sure he could put it on the pitch under pressure.
I also like Dec Patton at Wire an hope that TS has the guts to drop Gidley for him.

Do you think maybe you have your Bennet blinkers on, living in a city that is obsessed with him?
He had the best squad in the NRL this year but finished outside the top 4, and we seem to be worse than we were in 2014 even though you would say we probably have better players now.

A few observations having watched it back:
First half we blew three decent chances. Watkins broke down the right and instead of committing the centre and passing inside (where he had more support, he just shipped it out to JM). Real lack of awareness. Then you've got Percival's bombed effort. We were still well in the game after half time and had Burgess gathered that pass by Hodgson he was in under the sticks. In that regard it was a similar story to NZ, we just lack the composure and execution when we're in good field position.

Bennett obviously wasn't happy with the combinations he had and with the World Cup in mind, you can understand why he chose to tinker. After all, he doesn't get a lot of time with the players as it is and needs to look at how all his players handle big pressure situations. At this level you don't get many chances to shine and if you're not doing what WB asks, then you should be swapped out for someone that will.

But then you've got the problem that is Super League. At the moment it just encourages mediocrity. P&R has seen the death of the reserves because teams are too scared of losing SL status. P&R should be scrapped and SL reduced to 10 teams for at least 5 years or so, to get the competition back up to standard. Also the top teams are almost encouraged to play at 60% effort for around 80% of the season. No wonder when it comes to giving 110% over three consecutive matches we're not up to it.

Not that I'm suggesting Wane, but did you miss him taking Brisbane to golden point in 2015? I'd hardly call that 'failing miserably' given the cap differences between the two sides and the fact we were missing Lockers on the day.

Widdop is a "Steadie Eddie" standoff in the NRL, not exceptional, but he plays every week at a higher level than any of our other halves. Maybe Williams has the potential, I also like the look of Patton at Wire, but we need them to play against NRL standard opposition every week.

I find it frustrating when people advocate for Gale or Brown or any other halfback who looks classy against soft SL defences, until such time as the Kiwis and Aussies actually play a soft SL style defence (which is realistically never), then those players are not going to get us anywhere. I'll take "Steadi Eddie" Widdop every time over a more flashy halfback who only does it on a flat track.

People are banging on about halfbacks but we beat the aussies in 2001 with Sculthorpe and a 21 year old Sinfield in the halves! The key to all the wins against them I've seen (01, 04, 06) IMO was getting stuck into them for the full 80. When we give them no respect and make it uncomfortable for them, they can be beaten by a technically inferior side.

We just didn't look like we had the attitude that we wanted to get in their faces and beat them IMO. Nothing made it more apparent than Watkins backing off and apologising when Cronk started shoving him. Watkins should have been dreaming of an invitation to batter one of their best players with no forwards around to protect him! Senior wouldn't have needed asking twice, I wonder what Inglis/Dugan would have done to Brown/Widdop in the same circumstances.

Focus is also a big issue, 2 missed kicks for touch, not numbering up at a scrum being the obvious examples. We very rarely see that in SL so no excuse for our best players doing it at international level!

Agreed. The team that was out there could have beaten the Aussies if the mistakes were cut out:

Missed touch lines x 2
Dropped balls in try scoring positions x 2/3
Breaks blown by poor sections (Hall and Watkins)

We did the same v the Kiwis, created enough to win the game but didn't execute it fully.

Take those chances and cut the mistakes and even with the same players we're in the game.

Same old story though, it's being comfortable playing close to error free football every week that will move us forward not necessarily a different set of players.

I agree with Grimmy (above) to the extent that we needed to be much better motivated than we were. Burgess showed some fight (literally) when the game was over. I expected our much vaunted pack to put up more of a tough display than they did.

The appointment of Bennett over well qualified British coaches (including Steve McNamara) hasn't worked, in fact we have regressed. The displays in all four of his games this autumn have been poor. I fully expect him to do what all Aussies tend to do once the going gets rough - and you all know what I mean - which Super League club hasn't had a big name Aussie terminate their contract early on the grounds of 'family reasons'?

We needed to pick Williams over Brown and Gale. There is a reason why Kev Brown and Luke Gale are at middle ranked teams. They aren't good enough to play at the top teams. People whingeing that only the top teams like Wigan and Saints get their players picked - well, there is a reason for that, the top teams come top because they have the best players, not because of divine right.

Bennett complained that we don't have a winning mentality. Tell that to Shaun Wane.

Quite sobering when you see that half of the England 24-man squad was supplied by just three club acadamies. Where are these supposed "hotbeds" of RL talent that we keep hearing about, because there sure as hell aren't in the East Riding, Cumbria and the Calder Valley.

Hodgson and Taylor from the East Riding in this squad - which could arguably have had Houghton and Shaul too

Whilst I may be being overly harsh, two players produced by two clubs in what we're constantly told is RL country doesn't sound that impressive, but accept it's not the worst example.

I keep hearing on here that we should pack it in trying to grow the game away from the heartlands and focus on where we're strongest. If this is the best that the stronghold of the game can come up with, we may as well pack it in now.

It's a strange one really. As you know, I have my reservations about Wane, but I do wonder whether he would be better in terms of instilling the level of aggression and determination required, particularly as he is British and is therefore as frustrated as the rest of us with the aussies almost invariably beating us. The problem of course is that he is hardly a master tactician, and I do wonder whether the way he gets determination from players would be as effective when he isn't developing a relationship with them every day for years. Overall I think the appointment of Bennett made sense even though it was harsh on McNamara, and given his CV it makes sense to stick with him to see what he can do in the World Cup after another year with them.

As for the halfbacks, I agree but for different reasons. It was daft to pick Brown in the squad given that he is 32 and has not played a competitive international. The only way he should have been in was if he was good enough to be first choice. Otherwise it's really shortsighted, I'd have had Sneyd in the squad instead just for him to get the experience of being around the squad, and a game against Scotland. Gale I can understand more, he is four years younger than Brown and accustomed to being the main man who needs to make things happen against technically superior opposition. If it had worked, we could have been sorted for 4 years or so with him developing with the experience. However, it didn't, and realistically I'd say he needed to take that opportunity given his age. Next year we need to look to the future and pick Williams + 1 (needs to be an organiser with a good kicking game, likely still Widdop) to maximise his development. Hall and McGillvary (both 'middle 8s' this year) were two of our only players to come out with credit from the tournament so I definitely wouldn't agree about only picking from the top teams.

I don't think that tactics are that important in International rugby as Bennett's tactics are hardly complex - unless I'm missing something (which is highly likely!). I think Wane would have been able to motivate the team in a way that Bennett couldn't - he can't really lead a rallying call against the Aussie b'stards-being one himself!

That said I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong about Bennett and I really don't want Wane to be introduced to the hate-a-thon that would inevitably ensue when we lose (I leave that to Wigan fans

).

I shelled out money to see all three of England's games and I feel that we didn't put our best foot forward at all. The atmosphere was like a snooker hall at both Coventry and London. Quite how stadiums that are half full can help the national team I'm not sure. I'd have played the three games at Wigan, Leeds and Hull and to hell with growing the game outside the heartlands until we have a winning team to be proud of, that people will be interested in coming to see play.

So he's just the man behind the curtain with the megaphone?


The Wizard of Oz, indeed.

Ive said it before, the way RL tries to grow the game is pointless. If a local from Coventry went to the game and was hooked, is he expected to drive up to Widnes every weekend?
We should be trying to increase popularity of the game in Manchester and liverpool (so I think Anfield was a good choice) where there are huge population bases near enough to professional teams (Salford and Saints) to start supporting them.
There is no reason I can see that Salford and St Helens couldn't get similar attendance to Leeds.

Is the idea not that we are introducing new people to the sport who then watch RL regularly on TV, buy products from RL teams and those advertising at the games, and attend the big events (CC Final, internationals etc) thus making us more marketable so we can attract more money via sponsorship and TV deals? I'd imagine it's far easier to get broadcasters and sponsors interested if we have plenty fans from London watching on tv every week with all that disposable income burning a hole in their pockets as opposed to our traditional working class fan base from northern towns.

You might increase viewership a bit by playing a game down south, but in manchester and liverpool you could actually get some new FANS who regularly go to games and will watch sky games more often because they follow a team.
Also I don't know if you know this, but there are working class people in London and even some middle class people in the north

Yeah it's called Harrogate.

Because going down to 12 has worked wonders, imagine what good 10 will do. The NRL has 16 teams, maybe consider that plays a part in their superiority.

You what?

^^^

Erm how about - Inglis, Smith, Cronk, Thurston for starters

Yep, we should hold events in Manchester and Liverpool too, like the Grand Final or the Four Nations Final. Oh wait.....

Yes of course there are working class people in London etc, but I'll wager the average new fan from London has a fair bit more to spend that the average new fan from our heartlands, and is thus more attractive to sponsors.

I've never understood the argument for reducing the amount of teams in Super League. All you do is reduce the chances of playing regularly for young English players. Would Luke Gale for example have still been in Super League if we only had ten teams? He only got a move to Bradford after leaving London. If there were only ten teams in the League would he have been picked up at all or would he have to go to a Championship club and gone part time?

All you do by cutting down the teams is deny 40+ players a living and thousands of fans the opportunity to watch Super League.We are nearing saturation point as it is with watching Wigan play Leeds or Saints up to five times a season. Cutting the teams means 'same old, same old' and Sky would pretty soon tire of that.

The argument that it would improve standards is a fallacy.Take a look at the Scottish Premier if you don't believe me. Celtic and Rangers both won European honours in the days when the Scottish League had 22 teams. It now has 10 and the standard is about English League 1 or 2 level (3rd or 4th division in old money)

The Aussies did the basics, built pressure, ran hard especially their 2nd rows along the centre channels and waited for their chances to come.

Sure GI made some great runs and was hard to put down, but then some of our players were too. The spine of 9, 7 and 6 were consistently very good not exceptionally outstanding.

We also made breaks, put players through gaps and broke the line, but we made mistakes - we could easily have been 3 scores better through simply catching the ball.

The Aussies didn't make any mistakes.

Imagine if we'd played error free rugby, the score one would be far closer.

That's why I said there was no one head and shoulders above us in the Aussie team.

I agree with putting a game in Liverpool, but why not one in Manchester? That has to be the biggest oversight currently in our game. I know Salford fans won't like it, but I think they should have merged with some other clubs in greater manchester to form a team called 'Manchester X's'.

GF doesn't count because 99% of the people there will be fans of the clubs and it doesn't have the same appeal as internationals. I can tell you when the 6 nations will be this year but I don't even know what month the RU playoffs are.