It's not that I disagree, but none of those would have made the difference.
Welsby at full back, yes of course.....but then who would have been in the halves?
Tompkins was actually involved in most things we did well and certainly was the leader.

Of course if we'd had all those Sts players you mention then yes, they'd have made a difference.

It’s all well and good pulling the coach and players to bits after the event , if the drop goal had gone the other way they would have been lauded by all and sundry. Basically a makeshift England squad got knocked out by a team of NRL players by a drop goal . If the likes of Walmsley , Lomax , Newman and a few more had been available who knows .Welsby’s uncharacteristic mistakes aside , the hooking role was a bad choice in hindsight and was targeted from the off. But I’d keep shaun Wayne over and overseas coach any day of the week

Worst for me was “MickyMac”. Looked like he was bored sh#tless. Ineffective and slow. Watkins was exposed badly as was Samkins when the intensity levels reached NRL standard.

This NRL level that was only 1 point better than those out of their depth super league players you speak of.
They must have done alright then.

I get this I don't watch the NRL much as it's a different offering to our domestic game. I don't think it's any better I just think tactically we got it wrong and that included some of the players selected. All down to the coach

So week in week out the Super League is of a similar standard to the NRL?! We can't win these games, as in England/Gt. Britain, whether it's deciders in 3 match series, World Cup semis, we just don't win these games, why? Austraila & NZ have more sheep than people, but yet have a depth of playing and coaching talent we don't have. New Zealand is predominately a Union country, the All Blacks dwarf everything else. NSW & Queensland are League mad, but it's sporadic in the rest of the country, as it is here with Yorkshire & Lancashire, albeit on a smaller level than the 2 states i have mentioned. Why have they been so superior at club and international level for the last 50 odd years??

Watch Australian S L for a year then come back and say that .It is more professional in every thing by miles every try scored is checked by the vido ref and it does not slow the game down .The refs call the game as they see it ,not what colour shirt they have on .The commentators talk about the game ,not take the micky out of teams No head shots and very little off-sides all have been stoped because of 10 match hands ,not 2\3 as in this country Players get the sin bin on first affence .who ever they are .Not on what team you play for .England were out of there depth in the S F 1 point may look good but does not tell the story .The team they played are not even in the top 4 in the World .Could be now

That’s an interesting take on the NRL.

Not sure it’s entirely accurate to be honest.

The refs are coming off one of the most criticised seasons they have had in years.

All games over there are on live tv and the video ref decisions are quicker but again quite a few this year in particular have been absolutely panned for being wrong despite having the technology to hand.

No head shots? Lots of sun bins this year for head shots.

The top half of the table are streets ahead of most SL teams, bottom half I think our top 5 or 6 teams could compete with. The likes of Canterbury and Wests for example have been shocking this year.

What they do have is a much much bigger player pool at all levels from junior level up. I mentioned this on another thread that Penrith feeder system alone has more junior players registered with them, than the entire junior game in England.

There is also a lot more money in the game due to the television rights and media interest.

They also have meaningful rep games in Origin, Country v City and Prime ministers 13 games.

SL’s main issue is the obsession with overseas players, ironically a similar issue which is now causing issues in the NRL with the Pacific Islanders chosing to play for their home nations rather than Australia.

Teams carrying 7/8 overseas players is just plain ridiculous. It needs to be 5 at the most with no loopholes.

I genuinely believe we can have 20 players who can play at the top level, however he have no depth.

Loosing Newman sees our next option being Watkins….that’s a huge problem.

Australia can lose Trobojevic and they have Mitchell, Todesco, Holmes, Gagai etc etc who could step in.

More money and more players is always going to make it an uphill battle for England and until we do something to improve pathways then it’s always going to be the same story.

I don't want to watch the NRL thanks it doesn't interest me it's the same game played differently with some different rules. If we played our style against them internationally that would do for me.

You make some excellent points there.
If the Australian pool of players was the same as ours we'd probably be competitive.
I think it's a bit like Australian club football competing with ours -they can't.

A poor comparison there if you don't mind me saying so, if you take out all the foreign players out of our top two divisions we'd be competing with the Aussie football teams.

World Cup for the other ball game start next week Let's see how the millionaires of sport in this country get on Will be a big turn of for me will not watch .like one third of the country . No excuses about finance there

Seeing if the ladies can do better

Matter of opinion of course, and I take your point. The fact is that football is our national game, and that's really where all the spectators and the money go.
Rugby league in this country is a minor sport whether we like it or not.
I don't know what the national sport is in Australia, but Rugby League is certainly much bigger there than here and that's why it's so much harder for us to compete with them.

Wouldn't bet on it for sure, but isn't it Rugby League?.
Football may be our national sport I don't know, but it's a sad indictment that if so half the players in the premiership are foreigners, some national sport eh!

That's not what makes it the national sport. It's participation. Doesn't matter if there are foreigners playing as well.

Football hoovers up most of the athletic talent in this country, and players can make a decent living quite far down the pyramid. Those that don't will play on a Sunday and when they don't it's all about watching it as a spectator or on TV.

Ultimately if football were as strong in Australia as it is here, the aussies would soon lose a large proportion of athletes who could excel in league and the investment in the NRL would drop along with the standards.

We are trying to compete with an absolute juggernaut of the RL world unfortunately for the British game. The NRL have just renewed their TV deal for 5 years to the tune of £327 million, not to mention Telstra sponsorship worth £50 million over 5 years. The Bunker costs £1.5 million a year to run over there.

It’s the youth set up however that is most impressive for me, with both NZ and Aus really benefitting from players getting picked off young and going to schools of sporting excellence like Kirwan State or Keebra park for example. These are young lads at 13 years old leaving their countries or states at such a young age and coming through these systems so they are primed ready for RL. When Gaz Widdop came through as a junior at Melbourne Storm, he was the only lad living at home, everyone else was from either NZ/Queensland or NSW, at 16 years old. These lads are programmed to be elite athletes from a very early age, their dedication alongside the facilities around them have shown why they are superior. We saw possibly the best NZ team in a long time get beat by an apparently weak/ small Aus team. There’s no such thing as a weak Aus team.

England Football is the sport that really pulls the country together even though, like with RL. there's an underlying dislike of some players. For Welsby, Micky Mac and Tomkins see Kane, McGuire, Rashford and Sterling.

We lost, whatever you say PT, last minute, again, because we haven’t got NRL intensity levels in our RL DNA

I don't get why you make that leap.
It is true that Super League isn't as intense.
But that doesn't mean that's why we lost.

9 of our players have played in NRL. 4 are currently playing and are well regarded.

The player that broke and scored their tries plays for Salford.

So there is no logic that it is just because they play in NRL. They had good players, so did we. We were pretty evenly matched but when it came to the key moments, they reacted better.

I assume you mean Kane and Welsby are universally liked.
But McGuire and micky are not?

Across the whole team, England is better. Luia is better than any standoff we have by a long way, and Crichton is better than any centre we have by a long way. Milford is very good but can be hit and miss. Across the whole team though, I would say we had a better and more even team.

Watkins can be blamed as an individual for us being behind at half-time, but we had no better centre available and he'd had a good tournament. He just had one of those games.

On the other hand, if our best player had been more observant, Radley, a bona fide NRL superstar, we'd have won, because Crichton just waited for that pass for the interception. A better pass and we're over and it's our game.

Apparently Radley stuck the nut on James Bentley at the team hotel after he was giving Wane grief for not picking him for England. I’m sure it’ll all come out. Also some players allegedly playing knock a door run on the Samoan team doors too as they were stating at the same hotel.