Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"Ask yourself why Charnley is the only winger to score 30+ tries in the last two seasons. Watkins hardly gave him a pass worthy of the name in the autumn internationals. Plus Goulding's defence is better. Also re Matty Smith. He is the TOP scrum half this year. Both half backs should be able to kick. Chase cannot play to structure and Widdop has had a poor season when fit. Most people think that because he plays for Melbourne he must be good, but don't realise he was a work in progress there. Anyone could play alongside Cronk, Slater and Smith and look good. He wasn't really asked to do a lot for Melbourne. IMO Ratchford is a better player. I agree that Mossop has generally had a poor year and that Crabtree should have been nailed on.'" It seems not only Melbourne (who offered a 4 year deal) think Widdop is a class act but also St George to the tune of $2 million. www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/w ... 6624417889

Quote ="Aboveusonlypie"Ask yourself why Charnley is the only winger to score 30+ tries in the last two seasons. Watkins hardly gave him a pass worthy of the name in the autumn internationals. Plus Goulding's defence is better. Also re Matty Smith. He is the TOP scrum half this year. Both half backs should be able to kick. Chase cannot play to structure and Widdop has had a poor season when fit. Most people think that because he plays for Melbourne he must be good, but don't realise he was a work in progress there. Anyone could play alongside Cronk, Slater and Smith and look good. He wasn't really asked to do a lot for Melbourne. IMO Ratchford is a better player. I agree that Mossop has generally had a poor year and that Crabtree should have been nailed on.'" It seems not only Melbourne (who offered a 4 year deal) think Widdop is a class act but also St George to the tune of $2 million. www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/w ... 6624417889

I'm not proposing we don't try to win. I just don't think selecting hock and going into all out attack mode is the best thing to do. I'm not saying the noble thing was a beacon of awesome england achievment either, but our best recent results against the aussies came under him.

You can talk all day about our half backs, we don't have any good enough at international level so we all know why sin fields in the team, his leadership quality etc, I don't get Farrell, too small I would rather have ferris from Huddesfield don't rate Farrell he over hyped and no more than a goog club player IMO. As for hardaeker he's the best all round full back in superleague but Tompkins offers the X factor, think the rest is about right, I would have had Crabtree in stead of the burgess bro who played for Bradford last year and don't like mm, burrow on bench for me also offers a cover and X factor for when roby goes off,

Anyone who thinks england have even a hope, of just getting close to australia should watch the NRL grand final from this morning.

Incredible.

Doesn't matter what mantra england play with. In fact the thought of england ''giving it a go'' with players like sinfield and chase and expecting to break down the type of defence on show in the nrl is laughable.

England will be lucky to score more than a couple of tries when they play australia.

Have to agree....

I certainly would not have Sinfield at SO. Hooker perhaps with Roby off the bench ( no room in there for Burrow either IMO ) ... Hardaker has to be FB with Tomkins in the halves, the latter being hopeless on the bombs and one on one tackles but the best bet of breaking defence at half back

Mcnamara decided on his structure in 2011 and he's sticking to his guns. Tomkins will be at fullback, sinfield at SO and chase at SH and england will come up woefully short. He could play hardaker at fullback and tomkins at SO, england's line up may look more exciting but they still come up short.

Come up short of what? Winning the world cup? or improving their reputation?

The Kiwis have done it twice on the Aussies when they were also expected to take a hammering from them. Surely if England can at least make the final at the expense of the Kiwis they will have come a lot longer way than people thought? and therefore gain some considerable credit for it?

If the Aussies are as indestructable as some believe, then what can England do exactly to have some degree of credit?

Just out of interest - does anyone know how many of the 24 man squad have represented England Academy against the Australian Schoolboys? We often hear about how the youngsters are more successful and how they'll come through and make us more competitive but it doesn't happen. This seems to be in part to the intensity of the respective leagues, and the transition into the first teams.

Thought it would be interesting to know

Whilst not disagreeing with your overall point, out of the five or six best players on show yesterday, only one was Australian.
The key to beating the Australians lies in how you approach the game and tactics are not the where the answer lies. Quite simply, you have to rough them up, it is the only way we or the kiwis have beaten them in the last twenty five years.

England need to make the final and be competitive in the final. Bottom line. They need to make a game of it in the decider. That means that the game isn't effectively over going into the last 15 minutes or before.

Considering england are on home soil, the kiwis recent record on these shores and the fact that other than the kiwis theres no other serious competition to be australia opponents in the final, simply making the final isn't enough.

What do you mean, 'rough them up'?

England need to approach the games as a top super league side would the playoffs. Completed sets, good kicking game, no silly penalties. Forcing drop outs close to the line. They need to try and win the territorial battle as much as possible. They actually managed a game like this against the kiwis in the 2011 4 nations decider to get to the final, though i take the point it was a poor kiwi team. But had england not taken such a disciplined approach they would have lost the game, it was weight of field position and territory that slowly wore the kiwis down.

If england go out to ''attack...give it a go! let rangi and sinfield terrorise them!'' they'll end up with dumb rugby, mistakes, aussie field position and lots of aussie tries.

Basically you are suggesting that we beat them at their own game. That is how Australian teams have been playing since the late 70s, although I accept they have made some distinct changes to the way they set up offensively. You have to disrupt their rhythm and give them more to worry about than playing the percentages and the only way to do that is by being very aggressive in defence and playing on the very edges of the law.

I got to be quite good friends with a couple of the 94 kangaroo tour members. They couldn't have given a monkeys about how structured and controlled we could be but, Barry McDermott frightened the out of them (by their own admission).

Still, explain what you mean by rough them up? Take a leaf out of ben westwood's book and play russian roulette with the officials? Ask harrison hansen for technique advice? How happy are you with that on a moral level?

If england want to get stuck into australia the best way they can do that is to engineer good territory and fire up in defence when australia are trying to work the ball away from the own line, remember leeds in the 2nd half of the 2008 WCC?

Any team is vulnerable to disciplined, hard hitting defence when they are trying to work the ball up from deep in their own half.

That is pretty much what I'm talking about. Being aggressive, does not mean transgressing the laws of the game.

If you look at the defeats they have suffered to the kiwis in the recent past, they have been disrupted by aggressive NZ defence, we need to replicate that enthusiasm.

So the best way to do that is by being disciplined, completing sets and trying to get australia coming off their own line, over and over again.

Recognise that England can't play the same tired old players year in and year out. Wigan showed the way against Warrington by playing a younger, fitter, more mobile team.

Thankfully Ellis has retired and Morley wasn't picked.
Hock is a liability

Sinfield, Burrow, Westwood, Ablett, Chase etc - these guys have been found wanting in the past. Experience is overrated, especially if it is losing experience.

The team has to be fit and mobile with a basic simple game plan - even then in all honesty, they only have a slight chance.

Ablett has not even played again Australia, where does o'loughlin fit in with this logic?

Notice Greg Eastwood is in the NZ squad.

I hope he'll be ok in this strange country for a few weeks.

He should be the first name on the teamsheet.

I know Wigan fans have an inflated opinion of this most ordinary of players (Sinfield without a kicking game), but picking him at full back is a leap even for them.

Carl Ablett has been a great player for Leeds, just not international class.

Sean O Loughlin is the best forward in Super League - so I guess you'd want him in your team - if fit.

What measurement have you used to determine he is not international class?

O'Loughlin wouldn't even be in the squad for me, nowhere near best forward in Super League. Just as failed in internationals as any other individual also.

I think you missed the word loose off there.

If failure against the aussies was a criteria for dropping players, I don't think we'd get a team out

That wasnt the point though, he has failed against Australia yet the rules dont apply.

How about this? He's a second row right?

Farrell/Hock/Westwood/Kirmond/JJB/Wilkin/Bateman/Ferres/Westerman - are all better. He gets in the squad because he can play centre better than all of the above.

O'Loughlin is the best player in the best team in Super League. Sorry I had to spell it out for you. (I didn't really want to do that as it could be miscontrued as disrespectful)