Well what did you think of England today.

For me there are a few players who will be under pressure for their spots. Not a terrible start, not a great start.

Tomkins did ok nice to see him catching the ball and chasing in defense
Hall was pretty decent although there were times when he was ahead of his centre.
Charnley, seemed a bit out of focus for me, he did not chase the kick hard enough, which lead to the closeness of the foot in touch and not an attempt to run the ball out of in goal.
I thought both Watkins and Cudjoe played well and earned their places.
Chase did very little for mine.
Sinfield was ok had some great kicks
The starting pack was fine, George Burgess was my MOM for England.
Lee Mossop again another player who did not seem to be up to speed. He could be under threat next week.
Widdop for me looked quite bright and should be a starter for mine. Can he and Sinfield be a starting pair?

Chase needs more creative license. Widdop needs to start in place of sinfield but that won't happen

This is a pretty fair summary. I thought Hill was also very good and along with G. Burgess they took the team forward well. With Graham back next week, I expect one of T. Burgess or Mossop to make way

The centres were great in defence and kept the opposites quiet

Charnley was hesitant in both attack and defence I thought but Hall and Tomkins went well

Roby was dangerous with the ball and did a mountain of work and I though the back three were ok

Once again, the Sinfield/Chase partnership didn’t look great and I wouldn’t mind Widdop getting a full game in the next two group games

Overall very encouraging and we need to see some momentum build up over the next three games before the next big game

More importantly, why do you feel it neccessary to use the word "mine" incorrectly when trying to make a point?

It wasn't encouraging at all. Nothing has changed. Australia are always conscious of the sport and the competition's profile so chose not to have a warm up. They naturally started slowly, but still won comfortably. Had they needed to, they could still have scored at will.

For England, I thought the pack went okay, particularly Burgess S, Burgess G, Hill and Ferres. Westwood was absolutely appalling however, a complete liability who cost England whenever it looked like they were doing okay. Penalty after penalty and no quality with the ball. He's a menace in Super League, but he's just not good enough at this level, he's not got the discipline or composure to handle it. Mossop was another one who really struggled, it all collapsed a bit when him and Burgess T were on.

I think the World Cup would be quite a spectacle if Australia weren't in it.

Did not realize I was having an English test today.

I shall correct and write a 100 times, but it does not have the same effect in the days of cut and paste.

Thought Ferres showed up well given his late inclusion in the full squad.
Mossop offered little and as comfortable and good as George looked at this level, Tom looked a bit not ready.
Westwood was a momentum killer in both halves cost us a lot.
Widdop, don't get the hype. Granted he didn't get as much time but if he didn't play in the NRL then I don't think people would be so vocal in wanting him playing.....did nothing apart from look iffy in defence.
Ablett if used should be used on the left side, always been more effective on that side at club level.
The centres went well and weren't the weak links they were feared to be, but lacked good ball in attack.
Roby showed that he should be first choice hooker, but I would like to see McIlorum on the bench.
Sam was good but suffered I think from having to do 80mins and this not used as much in attack as possibly could've been, why O'Loughlin is important to have back at 13.

Would bring McIlorum onto the bench for Widdop, Graham back for one of Mossop or Tom. If O'Loughlin is fit then one of Westwood/Ablett to go with Sam starting at 2nd row.

More than competitive, we just need to have more composure and cut out the mistakes. We had our foot on their throat after twenty minutes but then made 5 errors and gave them all the field position. I feared after they scored after HT they would run in fifty but the boys dug deep and with more control could have drawn level with ten to go then anyone's game.

A positive start for me.

Ferris was my mom. Considering he was a late call up I thought he was outstanding.

Thought most of our backs did Ok with the exception of Rangi Chase, expected a bit more in attack from Tomkins. All of our pack did well perhaps we should be looking at swopping Mossop for Graham thought Hill was a suprise at this level.

Sam Burgess could miss next weeks match but I reckon we are OK in the forwards, greatest concern is still our half back combination will we ever solve it.

Widdop in for Chase, Graham & McIlorum onto the bench. S Burgess probably going to cop a ban if there's any Aussies on the disciplinary, in which case hopefully O'Loughlin is fit. Mossop and possibly Tom Burgess to drop out.

This.

You have one of the most creative players in our game play catch and pass. He plays how he's told to. Give him some freedom to express himself.

Widdop should be on instead of Sinfield, who for me did nothing apart from miss a tackle for a try. Like you said, wont happen, as Sinfield is McNamara's fave. I don't dislike Sinfield it's just that he is so ordinary on the International stage where there are numerous better players in the position he plays.

If some of our team had maintained a bit of self control throughout the week I think we'd have really bossed the centre ground.

Thought Chase was pretty good in the first 20 when we were on the front foot. If you envisage the forwards being on top in the other group games you'd stick with him, if you had any sense. To me Widdop is a very average player who offers little creativity.

Hard to judge Widdop having only seen him in 20min intervals. however he must be rated he plays/played for Melbourne Storm getting in the team ahead of Finch at times. He must provide something.

Both Watkins and Cudjoe defended well.
Starting props played very well getting on top if things from the word go. was very impressed with how Ferris went considering he was such a late call

Not sure what Mossop offered today. I'd like to see Graham coming off the bench with T Burgess and possibly Westwood. Move S Burgess into 2nd row

Tomkins too petulant at times, i agree Hall was in front of his centre and noticed he wasn't too keen to take the ball into contact either.
Ground too heavy for Charnley i think.
Both our centres were superb in defence.
Rangi went ok in a structured attack as did Sinfield, Roby played well , would like Burrow to interchange.
Burgess Brothers were very good but maybe up the intensity a bit more second half, Hill was good too when he came on, Mossop solid.
Secondrow hmmm..........our best two in superleague are Hock and Westwood but both can lose you games as much as win you games so glad Hock was shown the door , Westwood poor giving penalties away even when we were doing ok ablett too.
Ferres very good.
I don't rate Widdop, he makes too many mistakes.

Yeah it's not like Sinfield put up the kick for Cudjoe's try or he and Chase linked for Hall's try.
Whilst Widdop did nothing when he came on.
Plus if people think Chase being given the freedom to express himself is the key to beating Australia then they're kidding themselves and just too focused on x-factor players. Did Thurston and Cronk do anything wow or x-factor like? They played good no doubt, but as team players not in free reign roles.

What REALLY cost England today coughing up possession and a few daft penalties, mostly from the forwards. Westwood for all the tackles he made undid that hard work on several occasions.

George, Roby and Hill were outstanding, Westwood worked his nuts off but he's a bungalow at times. Tom Burgess and Mossop killed our momentum when they came on and Graham coming back for one of these two will definitely boost England.
The centres were generally very good especially in defence despite being billed as defensive nightmares by certain posters.

England's main problem though was their discipline and completion rate. if they improve in those areas they have a chance.

Thought it was encouraging in parts, we werent battered as usual against the Aussies.

What is clear is we are seriously lacking in the half-back area...Chase, for me, offers absolutely nothing in the International set up, certainly nothing that any of the other half backs in the game could, Sinfield tried but again, isn't a creative player in my opinion. Widdop would probably be a better option than Chase .

Thought Hill and G.Burgess started well and laid a great platform for us, Mossop also offered nothing ...thought Watkins, Cudjoe, Ferres, S.Burgess were good today and i see no reason why they shouldn't keep their places.

Hall and Charnley didnt have enough ball but both did what they needed to.

i agree. westwood was a liability and i saw nothing from tom burgess to justify being in the team let alone the squad

For me I think that we should have widdop starting partnered by Chase to add a bit of speed and and creativity. I know Leeds fans will have a go at me but I cant remember sinfield having a great game against the ozzies or kiwis. I know he set up Cudjoe's try up with a great kick but really what else did he do

. Also Westwood puts in a load of tackles but he is a penalty machine, thought S.Burgess and G.Burgess had a good games, shame Sam will get a game bans.

Still think if we'd played Tomkins in the middle and Hardaker at FB we'd have done alotibetter. Tomkins playing an old-fashioned supporting stand-off role feeding off HIll and G Burgess in that first 20 and we may have got clear before Australia warmed up.

Sinfield basically contributed a kick for a try. Any half-back could have been a link for a planned move. You could also say that any decent kicker could have provided the kick.

We'll never know if Chase can make an impact because he's never given free reign to have a go. He plays how he's told, which is basically a pivot. He could fail miserably, but what's the point in picking a player who plays off-the-cuff only to have them do what any HB in SL could do for the International side?

Same with Widdop. Expecting him to come on for 20 minutes with a game-plan devised by the Coach does not mean he is not worth his place. It means the way he's told to play by the coach is at fault. You want exciting off-the-cuff RL? You need to let the HB's dictate some of the play. Not play to a plan that doesn't change throughout the game.

Hill was superb two years put of ptrl

Westwood is a bungalow gets quote of the thread so far. I'm still giggling about that one.

I'm 50/50 on Sinfield. I thought he did ok, you can't really call him on the Aussie try. He was marking 2 players, the team did not slide across enough.

I'm not a fan of Sinfield as a half, but as for giving Chase a free role, to me that's similar to the arguement that some use on our home forum that Lance will play better with a good number 7.

If you can't inject yourself into the game then you can't. It's not about if only he had some mystery role it would make him better.

Maybe risk Tomkins in the halves and Hardacker at full back