england showed up for 60 minutes, and for once looked the better side. then the aussies showed us they have much more skill and better fitness in the last 20!! when will we learn?

I Know its a 17 man game, but the wholesale changes didn't allow England to keep their rythm, why take burgess off? sinfield was happy around the ruck, morley & peacock need a breather but surely one should be on the field at any one time, and with a slower play the ball roby is just not effective anymore, smith made changes for the sake of making changes.

the forwards did well but the backs got no ball whatsoever. did either half back play? all golden boy has is a right foot step. had mcguire played like that we would be on to page 23 by now.

as an aside thats the last international i go to. in a section filled with drunken HKR fans all we got was abuse. one drunken idiot,with his young son,ran towards us to get at another leeds fan, hurling foul mouthed obscentities,but tripped and went full length over everyone. took 4 police to drag him out fighting. all the young kids were cheering him. what a great role model.
finals with leeds are bad enough at times for drunken idiots, but in future i'll watch from the comfort of home

We were treated to "we all hate leeds scum" on the way out by their black and white neighbours!!

Agree tad. Thought the halfbacks were shocking and really left the team in a difficulat position last night.

That said however, they are both very good players and learning, so lets hope they learn from that performance.

On a positive note though, if that was Peacocks last international, he certainly put in a top display. And more encouraging was Shenton, who I thought was magnificent. Some know nowts on here think they can rate Shenton by a couple of T.V performances, but he really stuck the finger up at them yesterday.

Shenton has looked more impressive as the tournament has gone on. Some of that has to do with the $h!te that's been on display on the other side of the field (honeslty, Bridge just gives away penalties - useless), but he has put in the sort of defence that Senior would have been proud of. We haven't played an expansive game and as such we haven't been able to judge his skills which I think has been the criticism aimed at him this year.
Another good performance from Briscoe, although after the Aussies showed they were going to kick 2nd or 3rd tackle near our line I would have expected him to work that out after the 3rd or 4th try they scored.

Big problem last night was once again our organisation. We ended up with a poor kicking game as gradually the organisation of the team fell apart. I also think having Peacock as captain does not help. He is inspirational, no doubt, but he doesn't work the referee, he isn't on the field the whole time and he is not the kind of player who gets the team together and lays down the law during a game. Sinfield did his damndest to organise but the halves were truly non-existant last night. Organisation once again - this is not physical, it's not a skill gap, it's a mental approach to the game that is far sloppier than the Australians.

On another subject - did the Aussies turn and offload the ball out of the tackle once last night? If they did I missed it. Possibly the most boring game plan ever invented. I think the weather helped them more than us to be honest. It negated our best attacking weapon, the part of the game they were most uncomfortable with two weeks ago - offloads.

I agree re Shenton, much better defensively than I thought he could be.
No ball in attack apart from one to judge his offensive capability.
Our pack matched theirs but they have 4 absolutely world class backs that any side of any era would struggle to defend against.
As we know, once a side as with backs as good as that is on an attacking roll it's very difficult to defend against.
Persisting with short kick offs didn't help either.
I thought that they bottled up Crabtree by getting in his face straight away.
Not rocket science.
I enjoyed watching Lockyer, a true great of the game, in his last game over here.

Well, one did manage a neat kick which Fox caught and scored from, so I suppose one of them played.

To play, the halfbacks need to get the ball. The ball was continually driven up the middle and Burgess did indulge in some glory hunting after his first try when Tomkins was there on his shoulder, waiting for it. We were about as inspired as a thing lacking inspiration last night in total contrast to our second half at Wigan and our match against the Kiwis.

We also just gave up en masse once Shenton left the park.

No we didn't,the Aussies stepped up a gear identified where the gaps were and exploited it to perfection.
Every time Thurston or Lockyer had the ball they had dummy runners and passing/kicking options on both sides which England couldn't handle.
ATEOD we weren't good enough but they didn't just "give up".

This was the gameplan. The ball was driven up the middle to great success. The halves were given all the time they needed to position themselves and take control of the 5th tackle plays. They didn't.

I am finding this on-going "love-in" between Stains and Goons regarding Eastmond and Tomkins rather hilarious. At best the third ranked English half back pairing in SL.

Who conveniently happens to be a Saints player, amazing! You're quick to make excuses for him, which you weren't for McGuire, yet criticised those who did. Even McGuire put in at least ONE good kick against the Aussies.

Oh, here we go. Petty club bollox again.

And where was your golden boot boy nominee? Those amazing kicks and all that incredible on the park organisation? Hmm. Let's think ...

(Notice: I didn't bring up club issues, you did)

Eastmond and Tomkins have now played against the Aussies twice (or one and a half times in Eastmond's case). I think they both worked hard but last night clearly overwhelmed them. That was the risk with playing youngsters in those positions. However, what that experience will have done for their future is anyone's guess. By next year they will both know exactly what they are up against and will either develop into two very skillful players or they won't. Time will tell.

And no, I don't think they got a lot of ball. Look at the Burgess example. There was Tomkins, on his shoulder. What did he do? He tried for glory a second time when Tomkins was in had he actually been given the ball. I was at that end of the pitch, it was a glorious opportunity missed.

McGuire is an experienced international player. He should be putting in lots of good kicks! He should be whipping the Aussies!

Experience is irrelevant. We were told by someone on here, can't remember who, that Tomkins is 3 times the player McGuire is. They've both been picked on merit so it's up to them to perform, not hide behind the inexperience excuse.

You mentioned the half backs, I commented on their performance and the fact that club loyalties are preventing people giving a realistic assessment of how they actually performed. That's my opinion.

Do you want me to dig up some of the vast quantity of "petty club bollox" you posted on the McGuire thread, to name but one?

Well, it wasn't me.

But I do know that experience is hugely significant and to say otherwise is, frankly, silly. Why not play our academy lads in the first grade Grand Final? Because they need experience of first grade before they can hope to handle the pressure and intensity of a final.

With more experience and, hopefully, sound coaching, Tomkins and Eastmond could become a brilliant halfback partnership. But Eastmond had only played I think 6 matches at scrum half for Saints before these international matches and Tomkins has not played many more. We asked an awful lot of them against the best in the world and I think that it would be churlish of you not to recognise the tremendous effort both these young guys put into what are key positions under such pressure at such an early stage in their professional careers.

England were leading 16-14 yet the same problems being mentioned here were still evident.

I doubt the issues would have been raised had England won.

I do recognise their effort, they gave everything they had, as did every player. But an awful lot of people wanted them on the field (whether that be you or not) at the expense of McGuire, but when it doesn't go to plan (and it would have been the same story whoever we put on the field) then inexperience is used as a get out clause.

The Aussies were simply outstanding

Yes we had them rocking for a little bit but their class was outstading and their PTB speed was something else, as for Billy Slater and Inglis, wow




if Melbourne bring a full strength side over in Feb, oh dear...

We had them rocking and didn't put enough points on the board. Or even put them under real sustained pressure. They had us rocking and put 30 points on the board. To compete for 60 mins was great but they were always going to have a purple patch and how that was handled would be telling. And it was. There were still some encouraging signs and they need building on rather than trying to find scapegoats.

Once again we let ourselves down by making mistakes and not taking our chances. Burgess (who was outstanding) should be given a right rollocking for not passing to Tompkins just after we scored the first try and Grahams interception ball was awful. Those 2 incidents were key IMO.

Australia were like a Anaconda, they slowly squeezed the life out of England before chewing them up and spitting them out.

Some of the play in the last 20 was sensational, the backline almost unplayable - mind you having Bridge and Fox together was a tactical shambles.

Thought Fox did ok but haven't watched it again yet.
Who would you have played?

Well, I know I haven't used inexperience as a get-out clause and I don't think I see anyone else doing it. I think everyone, no matter which their club, recognised the risk involved in putting Tomkins and Eastmond as a halfback partnership against Australia. However, most - including me - were happy to take that risk because McGuire hadn't worked. We had to try something and hopefully this experience will have taught both of them exactly what is expected at that level and they can then go on and achieve it. It would be fantastic if they turned out to be our thurston and lockyer, wouldn't it? (Not saying they will, but they might!)

It certainly would. I think that's what everyone wants to see. The benefit of throwing them in is that it accelerates their development IMO. They know what's required now and should be working harder than ever to get up to the required level. Eastmond in particular could be a very special player, hopefully we don't lose him to RU.

My point about experience was that you claim McGuire should have done better because of his experience, which is indirectly offering it up as an excuse for Tomkins and Eastmond. Everyone recognises that McGuire played poorly that day, he had an off day, but I think most people realise he's capable of much better.