To me it's pointless debating the halves as mcnamara has decided on his structure and he's sticking to it. He had this in 2011, and since then everything has been on building for the world cup so he won't change it now, injury permitting.

Starting front row was outstanding and they gave us the edge through the middle. George's footwork is nothing short of amazing for a man of his size, I get more impressed every time I see him, he could be anything in this game.

Thought Briscoe would have been a better option for us than Charnley today, bit more direct and threatening in the contact and gets a quick play more often. Bit disappointed in some individual performances but nothing that can't be fixed. O'Loughlin was a big miss for us today and if we are going to spell Roby then get McIlorum in there, he would have thrived in that physical environment.

Expect Burgess to get a game, maybe two so for me SOL, Graham and McIlorum in for Burgess, Widdop and either Tom or Mossop

We weren't too far away today I thought. What worries me for the rest of the tournament my belief that the Aussies have far more potential to improve throughout the tournament than we do. If we get to play them again that is.

The major difference today was the half backs.... Comparing Chase/Sinfield to Cronk/Thurston is classic chalk and cheese.

Chase is out of his depth at this level, Sinfield has never been upto this level..... Without wanting to hark back to the good old days, a Andy Gregory/Shaun Edwards quality half back pairing would have torn that Aussie side to pieces.

Its ironic that back when we had some decent backs, then our forwards would inevitably get blown away... Now when we have some forwards that match the Aussies, it seems obvious our backs are a mile behind theirs.

If Sinfield and chase are the best we can offer, then our game is truly in a sorry state.

When did Edwards tear 'em apart?

Not necessarily individually, but as a partnership they offered miles more.... Let's just say that I bet Edwards/Gregory worried the Aussies coaching side more than Sinfield/Chase does.

Has an opposing coach, do Sinfield or Chase offer anything that would give you any significant worries in the run up to a game?

Chase is lost in an England setup sorry.

Worked perfectly fine for Wigan in both competitions this year with what many would consider not 'exciting' halfbacks. And Sinfield was at 6 for the 2 previous GF's wins.
Chase did play more free when he first played for England in 2011, it wasn't good at all.
And sorry but regarding Widdop, if he can't come on with a game plan devised by a coach and make an impact, then yes he isn't worth his place.

It's quite clear yourself and others have made up your minds about Sinfield in the halves LONG ago, thinking that the difference today was the halves shows this. Pretty difficult for any halves to dictate play when you have Westwood and Tom Burgess knocking on at halfway just when you were on top, or Westwood and Sam Burgess giving away high shot penalties or Westwood not being able to play the ball correctly when under the Aussie posts or Charnley not chasing back hard enough.

No we'll just ignore stuff that actually happened in the game (like you did firstly by not noticing who was involved in the first two England tries because you don't like the player in question) and instead whine that Sinfield doesn't have any pace and bemoan that teams play to a plan. Do you not think Australia played to a plan? Did they (apart from the Inglis out jump) provide anything too exciting or off-the-cuff? Or were they effective, completing the basics better, better discipline and ball retention.

Hill, Ferres and George B superb. The inclusion of Tom looks like another Mcnamara clanger. He was more or less the same player that was dropped by Bradford a year a go.

Mossop was a waste of space. Westwood penalty machine. Sinfield still doesn't offer anything for a stand-off. For gods sake play Widdop from the start. It is so hard for a half back to have an impact on a game in a 20min spell. Either play Widdop from the start or not at all. Give the other bench spot to Burrow who can afd some zip at dummy half'. McNamara needs to stop putting Sinfield at hooker too. Our attack became so pedestrian with his distribution!

A lot of effort from it guys, but we won't clinical enough in attacke defence or discipline.

We did tear them apart in Melbourne 1992 but Edwardss played with Schofield in the halves, with Graham Steadman doing damage from full-back. I cannot remember Gregory and Edwards tearing them apart, although I stand to be corrected.

...... Don't want to get into a petty squabble, so I'll just point out that I said a Gregory/Edwards QUALITY half back pairing.

My main point is that our present half backs are mediocre in comparison with those we had in the late 80's/early 90's era, of which Gregory and Edwards were our most famous.

I thought we lost it when our defence tired, we missed some key tackles and our important forwards went off.

There's no doubt with Graham, Farrell and O'Loughlin playing/coming on that we would have had a bigger chance of getting the result. People like Ablett may have had a respectable season at club level but I just don't see them giving us that extra something at international level.

For me, people keep harking about Chase and speak like Widdop is some kind of saviour for one of Chase or Sinfield. The simple fact is that Widdop did very little whilst he was on the field and for me he's very much a support player and not a man you can rely on to take control. He'd probably just be same as one of Chase/Sinfield.

In the halves, if we want to have this discussion, Sinfield and Chase are very similar players in that both need to be in control of a game. Chase is wasted as second-receiver because it gives the opposition defence time to close him down. Ditto if Sinfield was out in the left centre/second row position.

There needs to be some fluidity in that if it's on one side of the pitch Sinfield takes control and ditto Chase on the other. Either that or one needs to play and the other not. Undeniably, though, it says it all when probably our best half is playing for Scotland in this tournament. Talking of Sinfield's kick for Cudjoe, I don't believe that it was planned; in fact, I think his kick had an air of luck about it and praise goes for Cudjoe for taking a punt and for challenging for it with 2/3 Aussies around it.

For me, the issue with Sinfield is that he's very consistent across his skill-set and a great leader. But I don't think he particularly stands out significantly in one area like other players do (i.e. Burrow is a great runner, McGuire great support player, Crabtree good offloading game, Brough excellent in-play kicking game and organiser). Is that a weakness I don't know? But with O'Loughlin and Burgess at 13, Roby at 9 the only place to put him is the halves; or you take the captaincy off him and clearly that isn't going to happen.

For next week, Sinfield has to play 13 and we need to let Chase control things. Playing O'Loughlin off bench will allow him a chance to get up-to-speed, get some match fitness and build for later in the tournament than throwing him in 80 minutes.

Away from the above argument, I thought Hill, George Burgess, Sam Burgess and Westwood all played good. Roby played well in patches but very much an inconsistent performance. We need to learn how to play for 80 mins and the simple fact is that we switched off for 20 minutes, whether through tiredness or complacency, and allowed Australia some encouragement and far, far too much space. Cannot loosen the rope around the neck.

Think right flank was quiet, though. Mossop didn't impress me and Ablett didn't do anything to make me think he'd be ahead of Ferres with Farrell's return hopefully next week.

On to next week and my line up would be:

Tomkins, Charnley, Watkins, Cudjoe, Hall, Widdop, Chase, Graham, Roby, G Burgess, Westwood, Burgess, Sinfield

Bench: O'Loughlin, Burrow, Hill, Farrell.

Gone with one prop because Burgess can fall into prop role for a bit with Farrell coming on.

But how often did they play together for GB? Looking back it was Gregory / Hulme; D Fox / Edwards; Gregory / Powell; etc. In other words we rarely had a settled partnership.

Burgess will cop a ban for the high shot, so O'Loughlin to come straight in for him. Graham in for Tom B, George was a revelation. Definatley can see the impact he's had in terms if 1 years extra development down under. No matter who we stick at 6 and 7 for the next two games at halfback, we will win comfortably, but Sinfield Chase partnership is not goof enough versus the Kiwis in the semis. Chase needs to play 7 call the shots and be allowed creative freedom alongside Widdop. Both will run direct at the line and ask questions. It's plain and simple, it doesnt work as it is. Sinfield just gets in the way.

Plenty to work on, silly errors just before half time gave the Aussies a chance to get back into the match and they don't need another invitation.

Plus points for me were G.Burgess, Hill and Ferres in the forwards, The centres went well in defence.

Negatives for me were Mossop, T.Burgess, Westwood's penalties, the half back combo still doesn't look right.

I would be tempted to try Widdop from the off next week with Burrow on the bench. Graham & O'Loughlin in for Mossop & T.Burgess (Sam if he gets a game ban).

I always thought it would be a tight game, what with the Aussies not having a warm up game.

Good effort though, I thought Roby played well considering the amount of time he’s been out.

Once again, not respecting possession was a killer, along with some stupid penalties, the pick of the bunch being Ablett’s on Slater, did he think he was wearing an invisibility cloak?

I still don't think thre is a place for Sinfield in this side anymore. He doesn't have the pace to play in the halves and there's no point moving him to hooker because we have better hookers already in the squad. Even his goal kicking - one of the main reasons he's in the side - was not good enough today.
Picking Tom Burgess looks like a mistake to me, he's just not quite there yet and when you consider Crabtree was sat in the studio as a pundit, it makes even less sense.
Sam Burgess was poor today. Dropped balls, giving away pens for crossing and then the crucial missed tackle on Slater. He will also be picking up a ban for that stiff arm on Thaiday. A ref with more balls would have shown him a red card for that shot.

At this level teams should not be getting penalised for crossing, getting their defensive setup at a scrum all in a mess, and mouthing off to the ref to the point where we get marched back another 10. We made some really basic mistakes and these players should know better - you don't get away with it in SL and you won't get away with it here.

There were some promising moments but just as many frustrating ones as well.

Tompkins, Charnley, Watkins, Cudjoe, Hall, Widdop, Chase, Graham, Mcilorum, G Burgess, Westwood, Farrell, O'Loughlin. Roby, Hill, Mossop, Ferres.

Probably an indication that McNamara isn't unique in being an incompetent coach.... I always remember the amazement that Deryck Fox used to get chosen ahead of Gregory - If the internet was around back in those days, then Fox would have been ripped to pieces, because he was a pale shadow of Andy Gregory, yet somehow got in ahead of him.

If we are getting nostalgic, then can I throw John Woods and Tony Myler's names into the mix, because both were top class....Christ, we were spoiled back then, compared to the mediocrity we have in the side right now...

I don't think Gregory and Edwards ever played together as GB halves against Australia.

John Woods a points machine but not a great SO for me. Myler was utter class but suffered from injury and did not have quite enough pace. But his skill and strength made him one of the best players of his generation on his day. I remember when Widnes played Australia and Sironen was in his prime. Sironen charged up to make some hard yards away from his own line. He ran hard at Myler who just stopped him dead in a standing position, without taking a backward step. Extremely strong player.

Nice rant.

You are Kevin Sinfield and I claim my £5...





I'd be inclined to reply sensibly if I could be bothered trying to win a dickswinging contest on an internet forum.

If Woods was playing in the present era, he would be a shoe-in for this England side..... Unfortunately though, this era is obsessed with set-plays and stifling natural talent, so Woods would be restricted to playing in a channel (

) and would probably look ordinary.

Woods or Sinfield at stand off??....

You cannot play Westwood and McIlorum in the same team.
The problem England have in the halves is that you need to malgamate all the ability of Sinfield, Chase and Widdop into two players to get two decent halves out of them.

Brough would have been the better choice and would have complemented anyone of the other three.

Fair play to Crabtree for staying positive in the studio rather than saying how the fook did Tom Burgess get in before me.

Despite everything that is not a great Austrailian team and could have been beaten.

The difference was lack of concentration, some silly mistakes and penalties.

If that game had been played with Graham, O,Loughlin and Farrell instead of Tom Burgess, Westwood and Mossop England could have won.

Sinfield is a much better all round rugby league player. I would, seriously, prefer him. If you said Sinfield or another from that era, Eric Hughes it'd be Hughes. More pace and better tackler than Woods.

John Woods NOT a good stand off........ you're clueless or myopic,
or both.

For me pluses were G Burgess, Roby, Ferris, Watkins Cudjoe, Hill and Hall.
Sam Burgess was ok, Tomkins was ok but I expected better, Sinfield was ok

Minuses were Westwood (penalty machine), Mossop and T Burgess (how did these two get in ahead of crabtree). Charnley was poor.

O'Loughlin and Graham need t be back in for Mossop and Westwood. Farrell for T Burgess. I would leave Ferres in the side. He played hard and clean which meant no pens.