One of the main differences between the sides is the intensity that the Austalians play,every game is played with the same intensity whereas over here you probably only play at the same intensity three or four games a season.Until we get each team as strong in depth as one another I just do not see how we will ever challenge the aussies or n.z ever again and ,in my opinion,the franchise system at the moment is a big hindranceas each team has only 3 years to establish a strong squad and it will take 10 to 15 years to hope to beat them so either increase the number of super league clubs so that all clubs are able to bring youngsters through lor dare I say it no franchise for 10 years.

I think you are missing my point. Not withstanding the queries you raise, which I agree are valid, whilst we stuck to the game plan and maintained ball security we were on top and looked the better side. Our failure to maintan the game plan was nothing to do with players out of position. It was because we dropped too much ball and conceded too many penalties.

Im simply advocating that McNamara had not done a bad job, he sent the players out with a plan that was effective - we simply failed to implement it for sufficiently sustained periods - ended up doing too much defending against an excellent offensive side.

Im not saying we are world beaters just suggesting that Mcnamara, in this instance, deserves more of a break than some are giving him. We didn't fail because of his selection but because we gave too many penalties and dropped too much ball.

There is no simple practical way for us to compete with Australia

I believe if we can get more of our better players playing in the NRL then we stand a better chance of competing with them

Ten years ago we could beat the kiwi's, now due to the new zealand warriors inclusion in the NRL we can't, for me that is down the kiwi players competing and developing at the top level (among many other things)

I agree broadly with that. Although Tomkins could have been switched to 6, we never built up any land rights in order to use him properly at full back. Even if he had gone to 6, Burgess et al would have still spilled it early in the tackle count.

With an unbiased referee, maybe we wouldn't have been chasing the game as much, or at least would have been in sight.

The thing that is clear, even in the first game ,we have no strength in depth.Even if we had gone down under with our first choice team,it was always going to be very hard to get a result, but with guys like Morley,Peacock,Sinfield,Eastmond and Macguire missing, the team looked extremely weak in certain areas. Where as Australia could probably field a 2nd and 3rd team and be equally as good. In last years 4 Nations, England played some great rugby and looked like they were making progress, even in the final against Oz, for 65 -70 minutes for large parts of the game, we were the better team.I thought if the team that played together last year could stay fit and improve in a few areas, there would have been a chance this year,but it wasn't to be.

I imagine it was his decision to take the 2 when we could have had 6 tackles on their line. He should be hung on that decision alone as we might as well have waved the white flag at that point saying we don't back ourselves.