When we have beaten Australia in the past we have done it by matching them up front, taking our chances but most importantly by putting them under pressure. Under pressure they are just like everyone else but they are used to dealing with levels of pressure in the NRL that our players hardly ever experience so to do that takes a special effort.
The forwards have to make all their tackles, hold discipline on defence and not give away stupid penalties and they have to control the ball when they hit it up (no stupid offload attempts - that's what we want the Aussies to start trying in desperation). Most important of all though is we have to kick well. A good kicking game requires not just a good kicker but it needs a good PTB to kick off. You can have the best kicker in the world but if he gets the ball after a rubbish previous play he can't do anything. The play before the kick is absolutely vital, if the kicker can take the ball going forward it's going to be a good kick.
So if you are picking a team puting all your "explosive" players in at once is planning for failure. Lomax might sound like a great idea at 1 with Tomkins at 6 etc, but how do you apply pressure? Sinfield is smart enough to run a game plan that may put the Aussies under pressure, Widdop plays the game at that level week in week out and again is probably the guy who will be patient, make his tackles, not cough the ball or throw stupid passes.
I would have Sinny and Widdop in the halves and Sam at 1 where he can pick his spot to attack if we get near the Aussie line with the ball.

Depends what you mean by "rugby". Throwing the ball all over was the game plan back in the ealry late 70's and 80's because it was thought we had a skill advantage over the Aussies. Back then we had ball players who had skills way beyond what we have now and it still didn't work.
So for me "rugby" means not hitting the ball one up - we have to change the point of attack but sensibly - using FGB's little offloads, two or three passes from the ruck to get a bit of space, no stupid offloads but hit, spin and pop a few times to keep the defence guessing. Then back it all up with mistake free handling and defence and most importantly kick well off the right tackle.
Then when we get in the right part of the field Tomkins, Watkins, Hall and all dangerous and FFS let's not panic on the last play near their line. I'd prefer us to all that right which we have yet to see.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting just chucking the ball about at random and reaching for the champagne stuff.

What I have in mind is more about selecting players with the attacking skills to cause some problems defensively, in the right areas, not just 13 players who can tackle. We'll need everyone to tackle, but I'd just like to see McNamara take a bit of a punt on the less certain defensive qualities of some players who can offer something with the ball. Not the ones (Yeaman for example) who are a total liability in defence. But sooner or later we need to scorre some tries.

I agree about that. We will need to score points and we do need players who can create, attack and take chances on offer. I'd hate to see a pack of forwards for example who are just going to hit the ball or are picked for high workrates. A bit of variety is required and a bit of skill and brains.
There is still a big part of me that would really have liked to see Sinfield playing at 13 for club and country instead of at 6. I don't believe he's too small to play 13 and I'm not a fan of biff and bash 13's - 13's are ball players as far as I'm concerned (as you could guess from my user name), and I'd like to see some genuine halves, but it's too late now - he's been 6 for so long it wouldn't make any sense to change that.

I agree with your analysis DHM. When we competed with the Aussies in the early 90s it was from cutting out the mistakes but also having the ability to take chances when they came along.

In the end it's a balancing act between your players with "impact" and ones that can be trusted to make the right decisions and not make unforced errors. That's why I think selecting Gareth Hock might be fine versus France or PNG but never against Australia.

As for No13 I think Sam Burgess has the skills and power to play there for England and has proved that in the past. Sinfield and Widdop at halfback to me is a no brainer. Chase is like Hock IMO, too ill disciplined and error prone to be a success in Tests versus Australia.

Sadly we son't have either genuine (in the old fashioned sense) half backs, or too many ball-playing forwards.

I just can't see the likes of Myler offering enough at Test level (does well in a very dominant Wire team, and is a good player, but no more than that for me). Brough is a possibility though. And while I agree he shouldn't be at 1, I 'd still be interested in getting Lomax in the 7 shirt. Defence not always the best, but can be worked on. Burrow is, of course, another option but I think his die is cast as interchange 9, and he is, whether purists like it or not, incredibly effective in that role.

O'Loughlin in the back row offers a nice half-way house - really good, reliable tackler and with decent enough hands, plus some organisational skills. Hock offers variety and skill, sadly not brains... But that's why I think he should be on the bench as I just don't see where else that cutting edge will come from in the pack. I don't see the point in selecting him only against the lower ranked sides. We don't need to chance him against those teams as we should be able to punch holes in their defence anyway.

In the end, we can't pick a side that's going to give the Aussies nightmares, because we just don't have those players. So the objective of the exercise has to be picking a team that is the best we can put out and get close enough that they could cause an upset if a few bounces of the ball go their way.

I'm with BR and DHM on this. You need structure at the top level. Off the cuff RL is great when it comes off and sometimes its what's need but, if it goes wrong it causes players to panic and you end up with someone like Westwood kicking the ball anywhere in desperation. The key though is the forwards. Over the last few years we've bought into the myth that we can match Aus up front but in reality as a unit we haven't. What our forwards do without the ball in terms of running lines, and technique in contact is just as important as the amount of meters and carries they make. Aus have been far better in this area and as a result gain better field position so are able to execute a better kick and build more pressure. As DHM said earlier it doesn't matter who you have kicking the ball if they're 30m from their own line with 2 or 3 defenders pressuring the kick chances are it won't be a good kick.

For me I think it's important to have atleast 2 or 3 players on the field who can kick the ball. If we go with just Sinfield chances are he'll just be marked out of the game. That's why I'd go with Sinfield at 6 and Brough at 7. 2 halves who can organise, pass and kick. It also gives you a left foot and right foot combination. Brough also has that bit of extra pace. Then I'd have Tomkins at full back, and Roby at hooker. That gives us 3 kicking options plus Roby can kick out of DH.

My team would be:

Tomkins
Briscoe/Charnley
Watkins
Cudjoe
Hall
Sinfield
Brough
Graham
Roby
Hill
Ellis
Westwood
Burgess

Burrow
Crabtree
G Burgess
Hock

That's probably the the most physically gifted back line we've had for sometime, and we have some very big, mobile ball playing forwards I just hope we can get them all fit and in form for the world cup.

Good defences - and the Australians are traditionally sound defensively, both individually and collectively - need to be challenged.

The easiest way to challenge a defensive line is to make the players in it make decisions at speed. Defenders hate it. Give it to the big lad at first receiver and let him run it straight into them, and they'll gobble it up all day. Make a defender, particularly one who is physically or mentally fatigued, pick between a runner on his inside shoulder and another on his outside and he'll struggle to get in the right position to make an effective tackle.

So whatever else England can or can't do, they need to find a structure that the players can execute which puts uncertainty in the mind of the Australian defenders. Lots of movement, lots of options on both sides for the man with the ball. Isolate the opposition's weakest defenders and go at them.

The best example of this currently in SL is Wigan, perhaps McNamara could be looking at their set plays and structures for ways they could be implemented at international level?

I remain to be convinced that McNamara is up to the job.

What we need is a coach with a proven record of getting a technically inferior team up for big one-off games like cup finals and pulling off an upset against "better" (in theory) teams.

Step forward John Kear!












Is it wrong that I'm only half joking?

I think you're in the majority there.

The only player i reckon the Oz would fear is Ryan Hall, he's the only player we have when you line them up man for man that would in their squad.
As a modern winger he has everything, very quick, great hands and speed of thought, jumps like a basketball player AND CAN DEFEND.

On Tomkins, i really worry about his defensive positioning. In attack you can't fault him, but every time Wire have played Wigan, Briers has made him look silly, you don't think Cronk/Smith/Thurston will do the same?

They'll be putting up some huge bombs for Tomkins to get under that's for sure. They picked that weakness last time and I'm not sure if he's got any better under the high kick.

On current form, Brough has got to be in the team.

It is 2006 since we beat the Aussies and was at the SFS.
GB were fortunate in that Lockyer at 6 had his worst game in a green and gold shirt. Ben Hornby played 7 for his only Intl game and his game showed why he's never been picked since. Jamie Lyon played at 3 having just left Saints and Longy working the left side ran Lyon ragged all game.
Their biggest threat came from Inglis who scored a 70 mtr try. Mason belted Fielden and elbowed Long who came out for the 2nd half wearing a bandage around his head. Didn't stop him winning MOM though!
GB were a massive side and Pryce was at 6.
Intersting that when it was being replayed on delayed transmission later Phil Gould was raving about Hock and O'Loughlin. Also praising GB who had been written off.
In the halves this time around I'd go with Widdop at 6 and Brough 7. One has a great running game the other can take a powerful pack around the field. Kickers would be Brough, O'Loughlin, Roby and maybe Tomkins. Tomkins at 6 is an option and his 1 shirt could be under threat if Hardaker shows up well in defence.
Hock would be in there with O'Loughlin but the likes of Sam B, Graham, maybe George B should be playing due to their NRL experience.
As has been said though, my worry isn't the players it's the coaching staff.
McNamara, Lowes and Powell, good grief!

Correct

Easily the first name down on Scotland's starting 13

Brough's chances are bound to suffer with Huddersfield's annual late summer and early autumn implosion.

If you ask me, yes, he might show the leadership qualities to GUIDE HIS TEAM in unlocking most Super League teams on his day, but Sinfield has had opportunity after opportunity in challenging the Aussies and has come up short each time. Him and Widdop do seem like steady players, but I think highly-conservative rugby is exactly what we need to get away from, and has been pretty much our game-plan when we've folded against the Aussies over the years.

Now onto the halfbacks I would choose. Considering Brough at 7, it's no fluke that he's been named captain of the Huddersfield side. He has the greatest kicking game in the competition (yes, even greater than Sinfield's). The control of the ball that is shown when he kicks is for all to see, and he has the nippy, pacey Rob-Burrow-effect to unlock defences. I'm sure others will agree with what I'm saying. Brough has proven his ability years before this season, and it's unjust for him not to be considered for the England team based on Huddersfield's tendency to choke near the business end of the season. The England side should be picked with the game-plan and individual form and ability in mind, not the successes of the side the players for. (The Briscoe versus Charnley debate is tainted with this mindset. Briscoe is streets ahead of Charnley in all aspects of the game. Briscoe has amazing strength, speed, and will be able to relieve England of a lot of pressure from picking up doggies and scooting when Australia have us camped in our own 20, although Charnley will be picked based on the successes of the team he plays for.)

Our best player with the actual undoubted ability to challenge the Australian side is obviously Tomkins, everybody knows that. Because every one knows this, McNamara must do what he can to limit the weaknesses of his game while maintaining his strengths. We can't afford our best player to experience lapses in confidence when he's dropped a high-kick near his own line. Due to that fact, and that Tomkins shows some frailties in defence at fullback, and that he displays every week his ability to not only be devastating in broken play but also to create a situation of broken play, he has to play at 6.

What you will also see throughout the remainder of this year is also Lomax demonstrating that he has the ability akin to Tomkins in terms of seeing the gap when he's in space at fullback. Albeit, not as great, however his defensive prowess and safety under the high ball over Tomkins warrants his selection as fullback for England. Lomax wasn't as successful as Tomkins when he played 6 for Saints because although he had an eye for a gap, he didn't have the elusive running style to create space for himself like I've explained Tomkins does. He does though, have the momentum-based running style that's so important for a fullback nowadays, and why players like Greg Inglis in the NRL now flourish in that position. This along with his safety in defence and under the high-ball is enough to warrant his place as fullback with Tomkins switching to 6.

So when I say that we need to stray away from a highly-conservative game-plan I'm not advocating that we throw the ball about like fools. I'm saying that the rest of the team, (Burgess, Graham, Westwood, Ellis, Roby, Farrell) a pack with brains, the urgency to play the ball quickly and a great work-rate is needed to maintain a steady ship until some opportunity arises where X-factor is needed. This will certainly not be there should we need it if Sinfield and Widdop play. If England receive several penalties, camp on Australia's line and fail to score, you can bet they will punish us with a try not long after. We cannot afford this to happen, we must take our chances when we are gifted the field position. Concentrating too much on defensive safety in the pivotal positions such as 6 and 7 will be the downfall of our World Cup.

Ok so a few things here. First Sinfield playing his natural game has had limited chances against the Aussies.

Second you say Sinfield has come up short every time? What about the other 16(14) blokes for the last 30 odd years? What about Edwards, Hanley, Schoey, Scully, Farrell? they and the blokes around them all came up short plenty of times.

As for Brough, compared to Sinfield. Brough poor defender, Sinfield one of SL's better defenders. Sinfield, has more big game experience than any other England player, Brough has about 80? 160? 240 mins of big game time Tops.

Sinfield's international career consists mainly of getting embarrassed by the Aussies. Also, Danny Brough is not poor in defence. This is simply a myth. He regularly tackles over his weight and height and dominates the collision. I'd like to see his stats in comparison to Sinfield this year on defence. Apologies for the whole rant above, but some things needed to be said.

I'm sure Sinfields defence stats are far better that Brough's so far this year, his defence has been exceptional to say the least.

EDIT: when has Sinfield specifically been embarrassed by the Aussies?

And vice versa.

I agree with pretty much everything you've written apart from the above. In the last sentence of the quote you refer to game plan and form. How can any coach base a game plan around Brough? On form, I'd agree he's brilliant but I wouldn't want to stake my mortgage that he would be playing well come the end of the season. And no coach can wait until a fortnight befor the World Cup kicks off to see who's playing well and then start formulating their game plan. I too have reservations about Sinfield in the halves but I have more about Brough.

Who is Ward?

Plus Chris Hill is now a better than player Morley is.