If England had held on and won Eddie and Stevo would have been banging on about how it was proof that England are good enough to Australia and New Zealand. Not that the final try should have been scored mind as there is no way that two defenders should bounced off the ball carrier like that. The Exiles looked like that they could have sliced through the English defence and scored at will while we had to rely on their mistakes to score, as we wouldn't have broken through their defence even if they played until midnight.

A team full of 30+ year old Aussies and Kiwis (with the odd exception) beat England. Is this further proof that we need less overseas players playing in SL?

average age of the exiles was 29...with 200 caps between them...proof,if we needed it, that the exiles we're deservedly favourites for the game

Behave

So you think because the Exiles v England match has never been played before that means the supporters are in some way scared to generate any atmosphere?

Wilkin was one of the best players on the pitch

Regularly playing against the Aussies and Kiwis doesn't appear to have made England/GB better of late. Given that, why does anyone seem to think that playing a side comprised of mainly over the hill pension fillers be any better?

What is needed is cutting edge coaching & training techniques and infrastructure to develop players to the highest level.

It's a common misconception that SOO is the reason for Aussie dominance, but it began in 1980 which is just two years before the Invincibles destroyed GB.

That 1082 Kangaroo squad came from fitness and coaching systems put in place following the 1970 Lions tour and that have been built on ever since.

The answer is behind the scenes, not in a gimmick game.

Its also about the quality of athletes available. The differences are less marked in the forwards, but the best we have are a bunch of either lightweight or slow (or in some cases both) outside backs.

The game showed up England's problems entirely. The Exiles played a structured game with simply executed plays. There weren't any flashes of genius on their part, but England at times looked as they do against Australia, completely at sea, particularly when the ball is shifted wide.

I see real value in our players being exposed to that sort of attack, because if we can't defend against the Exiles, we've no chance at all when we face NZ/Australia.

Even though the Exiles may have had a bit more time together, the other issue is that all their team knew what their role was. Bluey wouldn't have had to sit down with them to discuss the most basic defensive patterns/attacking moves - they've all been doing that for their whole career. Compare to England, who when we lose a playmaker/move one player look as though the whole gameplan falls to bits.

In a futile attempt to make our game 'bigger' we have made it weaker and turned it in to a joke.

We had GB who at least competed and turned that in to England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, meaning certain players swapped countries like football stickers.

We then thought here's a good idea, France are crap let's play a team of imports who come over here for a last pay day, players who used to play internationally for Australia and the odd player who still gets a game for New Zealand, Tonga and PNG.

We then get beat, a whole nation versus a dads army of mercenaries who should give us a game but not enough to win, beat folks.

Folks back home in Oz and NZ watch that game and rub their hands thinking well if they can do it, we'll have no problem.

When this was first announced i was angry, i thought it would cost my team 2 points, it did.
I came around, i thought well at least it's good for our game, we then get beat and our own fans boo our player.

It's embarrassing and for me the death of rugby league internationally.

Bit dramatic? I thought the concept worked well. It was a far tougher and more relevant challenge than beating up France by 60. The Exiles were very entertaining and their commitment certainly put to bed any thoughts of them not trying. I really enjoyed the game and with a crowd of 13,000 on, it looks a success to me. Make it a 3 game series next year, drop Wakefield and Quins from SL and only promote Widnes. Play the games on Challenge Cup weekends and give teams with more than 3 playing International Origin a bye. International Origin will never reach the heights of the NRL's showpiece competition but it could IMO grow to three 20,000 crowds and become a firm fixture in the calendar.

You are just in a mard because your precious team lost. Warrington fans have been banging on about how strong and nigh on unbeatable your squad is, but you proved that wrong by relying on the Origin players backing up.

Check my posts before we got beat, yes i have been a bit of a mard booty, i've been moaning way before we lost.

What it ought to do is concentrate England on why exactly they struggle to beat an ordinary side of overseas players.

As for GB vs England, name apart there is absolutely no difference. Name one genuine 'Welsh' player (let alone Irish or Scottish) who would make a GB side. Danny Brough is as Scottish as I am. Which isn't very much.

Isn't it better to make mistakes in this game rather than in the 4 nations?

For me, it can only benefit England. Don't know what your English are so worried about.

That's why the English are worried.

Of what relevance is the attendance? It's completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. Crowds do not better coaches and players make. The idea behind the game is pointless also. Having what was considered a harder game than a test against \France will achieve what exactly? We all already know how good the Aussies and Kiwis are, how will this one game change that? What would that game have told McNamara that he didn't already know about his squad?

SOO is 34 players chosen who all have a shot at the Kangaroo jumper. This game is 17 England players apparently trying to get better by playing pension pot fillers. Where's the competition for the shirt or the improvement behind the scenes?

Send McNamara and a few others to an NFL training camp to learn all they can about physical and mental preparation and how to extract maximum performance from an athlete, never mind farting about in Union like he seems to be doing.

As preparation for the Four Nations, it's staged at entirely the wrong time of the year. Form and injuries are likely to mean that the combinations playing for England in that game aren't going to be the ones lining up in their next game. Put the Four Nations start back a week and play it the weekend after the Grand Final if you're going to persist with it as a concept.

In terms of the game, it looked like two sides thrown together at the last minute running very basic gameplans because that's all the coaches could implement in the time they had. One side was just marginally better at it than the other when it counted most.

Even if England had ages to prepare we would be running basic plays because McNamara is turd. We need a good coach. There is a lot of potential in the playing staff but no one to give them the elite coaching they need. Also the knigts need a game against the likes of France to give other players the chance to show what they can do.

i have talked to one youngplayer who was coached by Macca at Bradford and he was very clear that Macca was awful as a coach. he used to give big long lectures as his team talks , that were really complicated and sounded like they were from a textbook, his exact quote was, " he would drone on and eventually we all got bored and stopped listening".

If that was the effect he had on young and upcoming players god knows what the experienced pros think of him.

sums it all up really....our best players are benefiting from far superior training methods at club level from the likes of aussies maguire,brown,simmons or bluey when he was at leeds then our best players go off to england training camp to listen to a coach who's coaching methods have never won him anything......

its like university graduates going back to primary school

Name please.

Where was this talent in the last World Cup under Tony Smith (or was Tony Smith also a "non-elite" coach)?

Come to that, where has it been for the last 15- 20 years?

You could put McNamara in charge of Australia and Wayne Bennett in charge of England. The result would be absolutely no different.

bet it would

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Quite how you've come it I've no idea, given that once the players get on the field the coach has a limited amount he can do to influence their performance.

Changing coaches won't make Sam Tomkins better than Billy Slater, or Luke Robinson better than Cameron Smith, or Atkins/Shenton better than Inglis/Hodges.

It's a British disease passed down from the round ball game that if it's all going wrong on the pitch then it's entirely down to the coach and simply changing that one person will make all the difference.

wayne bennett would let em play......McNamara does'nt


can i just say as well......theres a few people whinging about the exiles being over 30's has beens


the average age of the exiles was 29!....with 200 test caps


in todays origin game 2.....theres a fair few 29-30 years olds....and a couple of 34 & 35 year olds...and steve price was 36 last year
__________________

Average age was 30
Youngest 24, 3 x 25 year olds a 28 year old and the rest over 30, hardly a squad that will be together for the future.

You may have missed it but Steve Price did not play SOO last year and retired in June last year.