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.