Last 15 mins of the first half and for some periods of the second we just watched them and invited them on to us. Got to be in their faces for the full 80.
Sam Burgess was trying too hard at times out there, just like earlier this season with Souths. Needed to just calm down and do his job.
Neither Gale or Widdop are match-winners - needs a spark like Williams in there, especially close to the line. Gale's kicking game was poor.
Wanted to see more of Hodgson with the ball in hand, especially when he came on for his second stint.
Lomax did enough to keep his spot for me. I think having Ratchford at FB would just complicate matters.
Sarginson and Watkins the weak links for me. I just have no faith they'll pick the right option when the ball gets out to them. I'd want to be getting McGillvray in space as often as possible.
Hard to be too critical when we just don't play enough together as a national side.

This. Stick Shaun Edwards and Andy Greg in that side and i'd be much more confident of winning. Also helped that they played club rugby together so were on the same wavelength.

Not a great deal in it.

Johnsons ability to continually get repeat sets with a cute kicking game was the difference. Taumalolo was immense, head and shoulders the best forward on the park. Ran it in once and twice every set. Typical of him to show up in that mood today as he was pretty anonymous against the Aussies the other week.

I also thought Taupau was a handful off the bench. Also their bench players were more effective than ours.

England rely upon the efforts of Graham and S. Burgess way too much as evidenced by the stats. Their contribution to the cause is lopsided. This is why I always scoff at the claim that we have the best pack in the world.

Note how the Kiwi pack shared the workload out more. Proctor and Harris concentrate on making the tackles... Taumalolo and Taupau on the yardage. Graham and Burgess have to do both (and more) to compensate for the rest of the England forwards who struggle over 80 minutes at international level.

Bromwich and Waerea-Hargreaves didn't appear close to 100% fit to me, yet the Kiwi pack still held its own in the forward battle.

Usual nonsense spouted by Leeds fans about Watkins.

No matter who's he plays for (Leeds or England), it's never his fault when his performance stinks. It's always someone else's fault for not providing him with enough ball.

His regular anonymity in games couldn't possibly have anything to do with him being a lazy get and a shirker who goes AWOL.

Player ratings, stats charts AND England lost.

Someone's had a wonderful day. Just look how excited he is.

And right on cue, the saddo, bet-welching stalker turns up with nothing of any interest to add to any debate.

Please do tell us what he could have done to ensure people gave him the ball. Switched sides perhaps? The thing is I don't agree with you that hours performance stank, he hardly handled the ball which plain and simple isn't his fault because our halves favoured left side. What he did in defence was generally good, I don't recall him missing any tackles he made a few good and important ones, so please tell me how his performance stank?

Are you suggesting he should abandon hours position to come infield and take the ball? Would that dereliction of duty make you happier?

Simple fact is you can't do anything of people aren't giving you the ball, and Watkins was given no ball today. Whatever your opinion of him, to suggest that is entirely down to him is just stupid.

Yes, i've been sat here all night refreshing my screen until some sadsack bell-end troll re-posted the same tripe he's been posting every season since RLFans went live.

No, really.

Oh and please provide ANY of evidence of ANY "bet welching".

Seriously, please do.

No? Didn't think so.

Guffaw!!!

I eagerly await your silence on that one until the next time you call me it, before going silent again.....

I wouldn't defend him if he was genuinely poor/ awful as described by some, but i don't think he was today. he was just ok as were many others. I think he suffers from over hyping big time. Truth is he is a decent centre who can have great moments but nothing more. Summed up by Kevin Sinfield stating he was 'arguably the second best centre in the World behind Inglis' before the game began. That is laughable and after the season he has had i would even go as far as embarrassing to hear. Wonder if Kallum believes these kind of things said about him?

And just remind me, with that amazing, awesome backline, what was the the score of the opening test?

I thought it was a great game, and the kind of game I want to see on a regular occasion, with the best players in the World taking on each other.

Johnson just did everything right. And apart from him, there was nothing between the two teams. Bring on the villains.

Serious question to any NRL officianados out there: How's Bennet improved that side, either collectively or individually? Yesterday's show was very reminiscent of previous efforts and in all honesty I don't think the team delivered much that one coached by a Macnamara, a McDermott, an Anderson or a Wane couldn't. Not having a great deal of interest in the game down under, can someone tell me where his strengths as a coach lie and what strategic improvements he's likely to bring? Cheers.

If widdop is in for his game management, it's terrible. I've not seen the game back on TV however he made three massive mistakes;

Kicking the ball out on the full from the kick off, I don't understand this obsession with trying to land the ball one yard from the dead ball line, for every one you win, 5 will go out on the full

The intercept

Passing down the blind side one yard from the try line when hodgson was set for a drop goal, dreadful 'game management'

Clearly others made mistakes, the Lomax missed tackle, Sarginson knocking on at a crucial time stand out.

For me, Williams and Percival should be in for next week

Two things cost us a game we should have won against mediocre opposition (on the day) - the amateurish mistakes (see post above) and the lack of creativity by the halves in that first 20 minutes or so when we should have scored two of three tries with that level of domination. One half back was anonymous, the other, Widdop, looked at his best during the game but in reality created nothing. Even one decent half back and we'd have created something.

So much doom and gloom and over the top criticism on here.

No, leeds fans don't think watkins is the best thing since sliced bread but it was stated before the tournament he had been framed as the scapegoat and when other players (sarginson, bombed 2 tries by not passing, S Burgess - the prodigal son producing numerous brain farts) produce as damaging mistakes and escape the same level of verbal abuse then it only backs up the scapegoat point and discredits those views.

NZ had a hit out against aus last week....we played france. We lost by a point and the game could have easily gone the other way.

The problem is that after decades of losing, we're too willing to excuse failure. Internationals aren't like a league season, where coaches get to talk about "improving performances" and "peaking at the right time". You get very few chances, and then you've won or lost. That's it. I don't watch England with the goal of seeing them get close, build towards something, or suffer another valiant defeat. I want them to win. Bennett's comments this morning were right: we need to learn how to win. Otherwise, we're becoming like France, where they get complimented on 'brave' performances, while getting tanked by 30 points. Patronising garbage.

We dominated the opening 30 minutes and didn't score. We gave the Kiwis two soft, soft tries they didn't have to work for. We had a whole 15 minutes to equalise which would at least mean we didn't have to beat the Aussies to stand a chance of the final, but we didn't take a single one of the many opportunities in that time.

I'm 46. I've never seen England or GB win a competition in my life. If we keep excusing failure, I'll never see one before I die.

At international level, being 'competitive' is just code for losing. We should have won yesterday. We had the forwards, the territory and the possession to do so. We need to stop hiding behind Johnson and make whatever ruthless changes are required to win. Enough losing.

I hear what you're saying, but everytime we almost beat NZ and Australia count for nothing.

My observation is we matched the kiwis in the forwards but the main difference was Johnson again. The weaknesses in the England team are in the centre's and fullback. Lomax, Sarginson and Watkins are decent SL players but not up to NRL/international standard. On a positive note I think England are benefitting from a few of our pack getting invaluable NRL experience.

Think some people need to look up the definition of scapegoat. I don't think a single person has blamed Watkins solely for the defeat or poor performances, just that he is utter crap in an England shirt - same goes for a few others.

But I guess we need stop in case we hurt Waktins' little feelings

The problem is we have no depth in the centres.Ryan Atkins? But at his age he isn't the answer going forward. The centres have been a problem for a while. The fact we played Bateman in the centres last year tells you all you need to know.

Having watched the game back on TV, individual errors cost us massively.
1. Sarginson's woeful defensive positioning for NZ's first try. I have no idea where he thought he was supposed to be or what he was supposed to be doing.
2. Lomax's missed tackle. The NZ player didn't even step, change direction or change speed. A player at international level should be making that tackle every time.
3. Widdop's interception pass. Just awful. Johnson would have been in his eye-line as he released the ball so he should have realised the pass wasn't on.
So three NZ tries as a result of mistakes that shouldn't be happening at this level.
Added to Widdop's poor decision on the last tackle when we were 1 point behind, Sarginson's inability to pass to Ryan Hall when he has a clear run to the try line and the kick-out in the full, it's clear we have some players who can't get through an international game without doing things that cost us points.
I'm not one for chopping and changing half backs, but I would be looking at a Williams/Gale combination against Scotland. However, playing Scotland is very different to playing Australia or NZ. I sense Bennett will stick with Widdop and Gale all the way through.
Without doubt, Percival has to come in for Sarginson. He looked completely out of his depth.
I'm torn on Lomax and Ratchford. Other than the missed tackle I thought Lomax made good metres for his kick returns.
Whatever happens, we are not good enough to beat Australia. We couldn't beat a NZ side with one or two world class players (Johnson, Taumololo) so we stand no chance against a team with Boyd, Thurston, Cronk, Smith, Inglis, Frizzell, Thiday etc.

We tried our best but the reality is all of the kiwi players perform at a higher level in the NRL. Johnson is different class to anything we've got and I think they'll be privately disappointed they didn't beat us by more points. Despite the defeat and costly errors we made I still think we performed nearer to our full potential than they did.

The result isn't what we hoped for but with several of our boys playing in an inferior competition it's hardly a surprising outcome. I think this is why someone as knowledgeable as Bennett played down England chances before the competition. The simple fact is we can match their effort and enthusiasm but collectively we're not good enough.

Thought the impact of the Burgess brothers of the bench was very limited. Cooper added a spark.