Good point, I do think it's a closer link in junior levels in the league area's over here just not publicised. If a closer working relationship could be built between the 2 codes it can only benefit both codes.

Sadly they are the few that we need in our game the vast majority are plodders who can't make it in Aus.
We tried the Yorkshire/Lancashire thing a few years ago and it didn't work nobody really cared. The problem lies in the youth development we need better coaching at junior level and better opportunities for young players at the top level. If the quota rules were sorted out I'd be more in favour of the franchise system as it would allow teams to blood youngsters without fear of relegation.

Nail on head but when will the penny drop

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.

Agree 100% as well. Next year potentially KR will have only one English player (Murrell) from 6-13. That is sad. All teams are guilty to some degree or another though.

the aussie commontaters were saying that the only way is for the UK to send its top 200 young plyers to play league in Australia for 2 years.. they will get the right coaching the right intensity and some will gravitate to the top of the game..

the most telling quote was about Atkins.... "he can certainly tackle.... he just can defend!"

I just feel that we never got the chance to see whether we are far behind or not, as we coughed up possession too often. I thought when we had the ball we looked okay. We had quick play the balls and we making good ground.

Two dodgy ref decisions gave them two tries they shouldn't have had and took the game away from us. And Cudjoe was just the wrong player to put there. Maybe on the wing, but not there. We know our three-quarters is where we are weak, and we play someone who isn't aggressive enough. He let in two soft tries through not being aggressive enough.

The Aussies are beatable, but you've got to get into their faces, get some fists flying.

how can we justify have a full time coach for 3 matches and a friendly once a year, how the hell can he prepare for these so little game times

Agree about Cudjoe. He is a talented full back or winger, but is he physical enough for centre? And how much has he played centre? He just did not look solid enough for centre imo.

I agree.... just not by the quality of player available to represent England at the moment


I used to watch plyers like hanley, gregory x2 Edwards etc... plyers who are far better than those available today... and they couildnt beat Australia... during the superleague war the aussie test team lacked a whole team full of internationals and won ... that Australian Team was weak by comparision to the best available plyers if fit... yet they won at a canter... shutting the game down for the second half.

the game yesterday was depressing... the auusie press are even now suggesting a two nation competition next year... England must dominate and destroy PNG at the weekend to have any credibility in the game!

When you think that Atkins, who many at Wakey weren't that bothered when he left, was our main centre with Cudjoe the other are we in anyway surprised we couldn't cut it? The decision to play curly wig and Cudjoe in those positions was even more ridiculous than the video ref calls and thats going some. To have any chance we needed to be right at the top of our game and get a bit of luck along the way, we got neither. The ball was stripped from Briscoe who was adjudged to have knocked on on our 20 then they immediately got the knock on try. That try of Tate's that followed was never a try in a million years, if he had control of that we might as well play basketball. By then we were never coming back with the players we had out there, too much inexperience and they had no belief. To be fair for all the daft mistakes they kept going when for a time with the amount of possession they had I thought we were gonna have 50 past us.

We were outplayed, no question about that; several players and the coach were totally out of their depth.

Even so, the refereeing can't pass without mention; the Aussie officials were so ridiculously biased against England, at times it bordered on the comical. Surely the ref's have to be neutral from here onwards?

I thought we did very well, all things considered and have a fair amount to be proud of. We got hammered by the video ref and also by the onfield ref at crucial times, and the convicts made us pay. We didn't get the rub of the green when we needed it and possesion was massively against us early doors putting us on the back foot from the off. Having said that, its fairly obvious to me that:

We don't have any centres of International Class. Atkins is well out of his depth and Cudjo clearly not a centre.

Playing players out of position doesn't work, we have seen at Wakey over the last couple of years that you can't do it at domestic level never mind International. Brown should have been given a chance to play with Robinson (who I don't really rate but has played very well I think) with SO'L at 13.

McNamara needs to be a bit more aware, it was obvious that they had singled out Tomkins as our (only) strike back - and they kicked him to death and hammered him. When the time came for the first round of substitutions he should have moved up to 6 and SO'L to the back row.

I must be the only one who doesn't see what Fielden offers, can't for the life of me understand what he brings to the team.

Quickly browsed through the thread so apologies if this has already been brought up, but the single most inhibiting factor on the standard of the British game is the all encompassing football and how it dominates the English psyche.

If the sport ever imploded upon itself RL would instantly have access to a number of prime athletes suited for the 1-7 positions, and that increased pool of raw talent should see the difference between the southern hemisphere teams and the English naturally close. It alone would not see England overtake the Aussies but it should bridge the gap somewhat.

Similarly if football ever became as big in Australia as it is in England then again it would swallow up the players suitable for the backs which would reduce their potential talent pool and bring the two nations closer together. They would still have the superior coaching and competitions, but that is something that can be adopted into the game in England far easier than creating a situation where the two nations have a similar sized pool of players in which to develop top class players from.

Oh, the second thing is the weakness of mind of the English players in comparison to the Australians, this is something that affects all English (British) sports stars. When things get tough, generally our players wither under the pressure, where as the Aussies become stronger.

I think a number of people are being overly harsh on Mcnamara after yesterday. When the players executed the game plan they were on top and dominant. At 6 - 8 we were playing the better rugby. What followed were 3 tries that blew us away all of which were the result of us conceding penalties or posession needlessly. None of these errors could be blamed on the coaches game plan or selection. By that time the game had gone - our efforts to get back into the game were hindered by more surrendered posession (not coaches fault at all). As for Cudjoe, is he really to blame for the first try - would the outcome have been different, in the face of the overlap had he not left the line - I think not.

We were beaten by a better side because we failed to implement the game plan. Im not sure what Mc Namara could have done differently.

I think you can blame Cudjoe for the first try, because he turned it into a walk-in. He just wandered out of his line. If he had clattered someone who got the ball away then at least you could say he gave it a punt, but he just went walkabout.

Mopsey made a good point about our centres. Aus have always had big centres, right back to Mal Meninga. We have got some big lads in our pack who used to be centres (Ellis and Westwood). How much better would we be, for example, if Ellis was a strong centre, playing a Senior-type game.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that the Lunt refs call would have been a benefit of the doubt try had he been wearing a green and gold jersey.

You have a valid point re Cudjoe but I suspect the outcome would have been the same.

In the last 30 of the first half all the 50 / 50 calls and ball bounces went the way of green and gold.

Add our spilling posession and consession of penalties into the mix and I'd argue that the problem was execution of the game plan not coaching.

And playing the best 13 in the country out of position at 6? And picking Cudjoe in the centres when he clearly isn't a centre? Why not pick Widdop in the centres (I understand he plays most of the time there)? Why not move Sam to 6 when it was obvious that the plan was to pagger him on every single kick return?

Can't work out why Martin Gleeson wasn't even in the squad. He is the best back we've had for years. Tackles like a second rower with footwork like a half back.

It's no surprise that he learnt the game in Australia

I think the difference for the centre example is that we decide too early in this country. In Oz there is nothing wrong with having big backs or small forwards. They give you chance to develop your game first. Here, at school boy level you are pigeon holed too early.
I think if Mal Meninga had been British (and played League!) he's have been a prop. Once he started playing there he would not have been taught how to pass or any of that style of play to develop his game.
I'm not saying Ellis would have been a world class centre as his move to the pack has been very good....but who knows. Burgess the same.

As for England's performance, given we already knew were fielding a team that was significantly less skillful than their opposition I don't think we did so badly.
The ref was aweful and when you need every chance you can, it effected us badly. We were always going to struggle to win but a closer game given 50-50 decisions rather than all going the other way would have given us a much brighter outlook on our young team.
I though Cudjoe (who I can't say I've ever really been a fan of) was not bad. The first try was a communication thing with him and SOL. If both had reacted the same way it would have at least been harder to score, but we were already under the cosh at that stage anyway with the break earlier on.
Thought Atkins was poor. He should be better than that but simply proved he is not a centre (certainly at this level).

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.