Don't want to tempt fate but that was most unimpressive. England must have hope after that.

NZ seem to improve as the competition goes on but I think England have a decent chance

Nothing to fear there at all. (queue 50 points by both NZ and Aus v England)

I thought Australia were super human. Don't you know these guys play in the NRL?

I hope this proves the myth of the gulf between the NRL and SL. OZ and NZ were both average in that game and England have nothing to fear. The only thing stopping us isn't the skills, speed or strength, it's whether we truly believe we can beat OZ & NZ. We have nothing to fear and we defintely can beat these two if we play to our potential

COMD ON ENGLAND!!

I think it was a poor game, not helped by all the messing about and slowing down at the play the ball. tbh I still think we will struggle to beat either of those teams.

Its no myth though. One competition is competitive week in week out while one isnt. I still dont believe England can defend there line as well as these teams do.

Agreed that it was a poor game but it worries me that the play the ball was so slow. If it stays like that throughout the competetion we may struggle as we won't make many yards from Roby from dummy half which would normally be one of our major strengths.

Two major differences I spotted though in that game compared to SL was the physicality in defence, and the vigour of the kick returns. Granted this tailed off as the game went on but certainly in the first half it was far superior than anything in SL.

After saying all that, our pack I think has the edge and the team just need to man up, have some belief and get really stuck in, not just one or two of them, but all of them.

I think a slow game like tonights would benefit England more than it would hinder tbh. If the Australians get to play the game at speed like they are used to, we will struggle to keep up defensively.

I don't think it will actually, we generally seem to do better with a dummy half able to scoot from acting half back and get us on the front foot since our halves and outside backs are generally not good enough to create something against a set defensive line, we need them going backwards.

There was in the defensive that I saw that suggested it was a level above the top end of Super League... remember these were supposed to be the best two teams in the world

Agreed. I couldn't understand why Sheens was complaining whenever I have watched NRL or Origin the ptb always seems to be about the speed we've seen tonight. Always. I mean I've seen footage of the 80's where even then the Aussies were much slower at the ptb than the British were.

The British have always played a lot, lot faster round the ruck. Whenever we have done well against the Aussies it has been when we've been allowed to play our game, which is really, really fast around the ruck.

I hope if Bentham is reffing next week he takes Sheens comments to heart and plays the usual style around the ruck that we are accustomed to over here.

Over who?

France and Wales?

That's just cynical.
The England pack would also chew up and spit out Russia, Scotland, Italy Ireland and many, many more.

I think the physicality has more to do with the reffing of the ruck area than the players. The Aussies style is to play slower around the ruck, whereas the British is much faster. Longer ptbs mean that a defensive line have longer to set, find their mark and put in the bigs hits. Accumulatively over a match it is less taxing on the players because it means that they are not as rushed in defense. It also means more men can commit more fully in a tackle because of the time they have to set and they can wrestle them on the floor for longer.

The British style is all about speed; speed of the ruck, speed of the ptb, speed of the ball. The speed of play means defenses don't have as much chance to set and can't wrestle on the floor. It leads to a different emphasis of play; more scoots, more emphasis on using all six tackles as one attacking movement and ball work i.e. flowing passing set plays.

This would explain the vigour of kick returns. I always think of the Aussie style largely being one up rugby of the highest level; one man more often than takes on the line using sheer brute strength, if they break they take it from there, if not, take the tackle and let someone else take on the line. Kick returns have less vigour in British style because of the greater emphasis on the team working together to use the six tackles as one attacking movement, rather than one person just having a crack.

A lot of England's success will come down to how the games are reffed; Aussie style wrestle-fest and we'll struggle, British style speediness and we could steam rolling them. This is providing the team have, as you point out, the belief.

i think it's a bit unfair comparing the best two test teams in the world to our domestic competition.



Wondered when you would show up dismissing England.

I'm looking forward to Super League style quicker PTB's, five scoots from dummy half and/or first receiver and a crummy kick on the last resulting in the steam rollering of the Aussies and Kiwis. If only the referees allow us to play it our way whilst penalising the antipodean teams for not retreating 10 metres within a nanosecond of executing a tackle.

They've been dis-missing themselves for decades in the international arena.

What's changed?

Why did both teams stop to have a chat for 2 minutes every time there was a scrum? Also the amount of messing around was a disgrace and there isn't a chance we'd get away with that against either.

The Aussie outside backline doesn't look all that when Slater doesn't fire.

Let's face it neither team was going at it full tilt tonight because they don't have to. The structure of the competition means that the only game that really matters for New Zealand is against England. The Kiwis know they can hold back this week, take an easy win next week and then go at it against England who will be backing up after playing Australia. The Australians on the other hand will face Wales a week before the final whilst England and NZ bash the hell out of each other.

Can't they rotate this year on year so that it's not always a similar structure i.e. didn't we start with PNG then face two back-to-back tussles with either Aus or NZ whilst they had an easier game? It's not an excuse but really it should be rotated to avoid any perceived favourable schedules.

The way it's scheduled is England's only way of topping the group, albeit for only a week.

it was nice of the super human australians to ease up after halftime.....no doubt a 4nations official had a word

the reason why england will struggling is because the players are not coached to go 3 men in and hold them down for a few seconds so we will concede points even most Super league fans seem to think its a spoiling tatic it does take practice to perfect, then england are used to attacking with a quick play of the ball which they wont get and will struggle attacking wise.

You seen two good teams cancel them selves out abit tonight.

England will have a chance they have 13 professionals on the pitch why wouldnt we stand a chance.

And there be the reason we haven't competed over the last 30 years - belief!

That we now have more strength in depth and don't rely on Wellens, Glesson & Senior for the next 8 years.

All year we've gone on about the stars of the NRL, but they both looked beatable last night to me. Don't get me wrong, all 17 players have to be firing. But we have to believe we can beat them.