Seen varying reports on Sam Tomkins performance ranging from people slating him leaving high balls to some describing him as our match winner (and forgetting the high ball issue).

In truth it was a mixed bag from him. A real mixture of sensational defence, slick attack and some strange decisions dealing with kicks. One thing is for sure the lad needs to be in our 13 somewhere! We're not good enough to leave a lad of that ability out.

I agree with the last sentence. His floating over the ground running style reminds me of Jonathan Davies'. JD started at SO, was moved to FB but, IMO, played his best (and great) RL when put in the centres. That's where I am beginning to think ST should be playing. I am not sure JD had played there until a relatively advanced age but he excelled. JD was probably lighter than ST and up against monsters of the era - Meninga, Miles, the Iros, etc. So I think ST maybe could do a job there. Having said that, JD was a much better all round rugby player and as a result maybe was more adaptable?

I agree he's too good to leave out completely, but the fact is the Aussies will have watched the Samoa game and they will do what Samoa didn't - put accurate bombs up all day.

I'll defend his attacking capability, as he does pose a genuine threat, and I'll defend his one-on-one and defence against grubbers. But the high ball issue just can't be ignored as though he can somehow 'make up for it' elsewhere. You let in one or two soft tries against Australia and you may as well not bother turning up.

Just looking at the match stats. Tom Burgess - 8 tackles and 4 misses. That's horrendous really, even for a half-back.

Talk about playing him centre on here and the other thread. That along with talk of playing HB still presents a problem defensively. I'm not trying to diss the guy as he's obviously a great player but no matter where you put him, whether it's FB, the halves, or centre then they're concerns defensively compared to other options. As a Leeds fan I'd say Hardaker is a better option defensively and whilst he's more than usual in attack in terms of being an exciting runner, he lacks a bit in attack still compared to Tomkins in terms of being a creator for others.

I'd be loathed to change the Widdop/Smith partnership too. I think Widdop is good and will shine as he goes along at International RL and Smith I'm a fan of too. With HB's you get the two E's......either Exciting or Effective, the latter will always struggle more to win over fans but is probably more important. If you put together a highlight reel of every HB in SL then Smith's would probably rank well down the list in terms of watchablitily because he doesnt play in a exciting way, yet he's been one of the most consistent and important HB in the league for the last 2 years now.

Regardless of who plays where in the backs, if our forwards - particularly the front row - can play as well as they did on Saturday, I honestly believe we can dominate Australia. It'll be a close run game, but if we can stop their progression, and keep on top of their kicking game, then we've an excellent chance.

Do I believe we that we can do it at the weekend?

Don't be daft, we always bottle it against Australia

Apart from ball retention (it seemed like every time the Samoans hit the ball in a tackle the England player would drop it), the defensive line was just poor. Far too often the whole team was back-peddling or stood still, waiting for Samoa to come to them. If you do that against Australia you'll get mullered.

The poor reads near to the line had also better be 'teething troubles' or rustiness or whatever, because they were inexcusable.

This is what will prevent us from beating the Aussies.
Bottling it. We have the players to beat the Aussies. It's whether we're mentally though enough to do it.

Re: XYZ player not playing well, I thought it was a funny old game, with just about every player barring maybe Widdop and Graham (good games) and Ferres (poor), going from one extreme to another.

Sam Tomkins - Great defensive awareness early on, backed up well for his try. Not good under the high ball.

Shenton - Some great tackles, and again supported well for his try, but missed what should have a been few easy one on one tackles.

Matty Smith - Thought he linked up well and had some quick hands, but his drop goal attempt was pitiful and he needs more composure.

Watkins - Again took his try well and looked fantastic in attack, put in some good hits but guilty of going wandering.

Ryan Hall - See above (without scoring a try obviously).

Darryl Clark - Added something when he came on but caught out of position a few times.

It's been a while since I've seen a game like that, with so many players going from hero to zero and vice versa.

Shaun Johnson managed both. We have become so used to mediocre HBs we make excuses for a performance that was below ordinary.

didnt rate him in the world cup either.

I actually thought Johnson's performance was hit and miss against Australia. There were moments of brilliance, as you would expect, but I thought his decision making on the last tackle was iffy, and he was a little over-keen (particularly in the first half) to get the ball wide too early in the set. With more composure NZ could have racked up a bigger score. He is a fantastic player to watch, though.

I would drop Westerman for Lockers and drop Ferres and bring in Whitehead to the starting 13 with J Tomkins going on the bench.

I thought SMith played well and don't know what he did wrong TBH. Having a go for a bad drop goal just smacks of looking for a reason. He made the difference for me, tries from 2 of his kicks and great hand so Sam could put Watkins away.

Sam did look iffy under a couple of high balls, but the one that just bounced before the dead ball line wasn't his fault for mine. I don't know what else he could do, there was no way he could have caught it with his foot out.

IMO we got dominated in the tackle hence there tries from dummy half. We need to get men in the tackle and hold players up before we put them to the floor to slow the PTB down, if not we'll get mullered.

ALSO LINE SPEED FFS!!!

The Aussies picked a smaller, more mobile pack. NZ were too big and too mobile for them. I am not sure our big buys (esp. the Burgess lads) are mobile enough and the Aussies may dominate us in the pack due to extra mobility. I think back to the late '70s when the little Widnes pack used to run the season long dominant, huge Bradford Northern pack off the field in the end of season games played on dry grounds and think too many are presuming we will dominate in that area.

Maguire gets the very best out of the Burgess brothers - they play a style that suits them. England don't have the team to do that. As a result they both looked very ordinary to me. They will have to up their game significantly if they are to have the impact we need them to have to win on Saturday.

Under estimate Australia at your peril, this is still a team of high quality players that if they gel will cause England some issues.

The Burgess twins look good in the Souths pack because that pack is better than the England pack. Not so much the style as the individuals in it.

I think all the team will have to up their game and I don’t think anyone is under-estimating the Aussies.

They’ll be up for this game as losing would be an embarrassment.

Souths pack had S Burgess and Ben Teo helping the other two Burgess brothers. But more importantly for me had Isaac Luke directing them. Throw Roby/McLlorum and O'Loughlin into that pack and we look a lot stronger.

In saying that I thought George looked good as usual against Samoa but wasn't at his absolute best. Tom is still abit more inconsistent but has the size we need IMO.

I'd love to have seen an England pack including Sam Burgess, Roby, a fully fit Lockers and a mentally stable Gaz Hock this Sunday! If we'd have had that I think I'd be going in to a game against Australia for the first time in my lifetime expecting to win.

There's an awful lot on James Graham and a potentially half fit Lockers on Sunday. The Burgess twins are dangerous but they don't have that aura about them just yet.

IMO we'll be fielding the weakest pack we have for some years.

I picked NZ to win by 12 as a result of their dominance up front and the Aussies tiring in the last 25 minutes as a result. The reality was that the Aussies actually tired visibly from about the 45th minute......if the English pack can dominate them AND IF THE AUSSIES HAVEN'T BLOWN ENGLAND AWAY INSIDE 25 MINUTES, then I can see England winning this game and keeping the Aussies out of their first major final since 1954.

Given that it would have been expected for Samoa, New Zealand and England all to bring big packs to this tournament, the decision by the Aussies to not try to counter this with their own monsters does seem strange......but as I have said elsewhere, write them off at your peril.

Oz by more than 20.

I think this game and Tournement will turn out to be a nightmare for Australia, they'll throw it all at England on Sunday and lose, leaving them with a dead rubber against Samoa.

Australia will not take England on down the middle, they'll go wide early and kick long often which will play into the hands of Watkins, Hall, Tomkins and Charnley.

I think they'll use a superior, quicker back riw and backline to destroy us. Assuming he plays, GI to score a hat-trick.

I have Australia to win by 14 points, based on England's defensive line speed being poor v Samoa and the mobility of the Australian back row. I believe they will base a lot of their possession on either good tactical kicking (hugging the touchline and chasing well) or constant use of GI entering the line.
That said, I'd not be stunned to see the English Pack literally rampage through the middle.......as I said, the first 25 minutes are what England need to survive to have a chance.

England's defensive line speed was poor in the second half against Samoa, because they'd taken so much petrol out of the tank turning the ball over in the first half.

IIRC didn't England have to defend something like eight more sets than the opposition? Cut that out, and you'll have more energy to defend with.

What's the status on Cherry-Evans? Hopefully he plays, because he doesn't scare me with the ball in hand and frankly he's a walking gap in the defensive line that you can aim your forwards at all day.