Pack was ok, needed a Morley or Peacock but not both, and beat the cons imho.



The organisation skills and confidence that subsequently pours through the Cons backline via Lockyer exposes our inferior backline, he must retire soon!!



Though Goulding and Briscoe looked ok for the future, but we need a couple of 6'2'' 15.5 stone centres, with great ball handling skills and 9.8 sec for the 100m to come through soon. Will that be Watkins?



Eastmond/Robinson/Tomkins/Myler/Widdop give us some hope in the halves.

Westwood - while not the best player in the world, nor most talented, nor because of his hair - stood out because you can see he's giving 100% effort all the time. Does he give away pens? Yes. Was that why we lost? No.

There was a noticeable drop off in the forward momentum from England when Burgess and Graham left the field... Crabtree is a good option off the bench as he can produce an off load etc but him and Fielden didn’t have the same go forward as Burgess and Graham



What I would love to have seen was the likes of Peacock and Morley in the mix to maintain that momentum – ah well, not to be



Specifically on Burgess, as above, his forward momentum was great but simply too many errors to have been described as having a good game

Welcome to the wonderful world of why we keep losing. Because we big up players who have limited talent, poor decision-making, yet who give "100%" effort. I used to give 100% effort when I played amateur RL. Does that mean I should get praise in an England shirt ?



I'm happy with amateurs who give 100% effort. But for a professional, that's not enough. For an international, I expect not just effort, but some success, and - crucially - mental effort as well, to make the right decisions in attack and defence.



Westwood is a bruiser, and for that reason, I quite like him, because I think raw aggression is a requirement of a top-class pack. But until he learns to temper that aggression by cutting out the silliness, he'll be a net liability to club and country.

how many of those have any experience of international success?

BUt i didn't just pick out 2 saints players. And i can't see how you can have a love in with any player when we've been outplayed on all accounts in 2 games. Noone erally shone in either game but the ones who were to supposed to be our game breakers i.e. Roby, Graham, Burgess, Ellis, Tomkins didn't stand out at all. Westwood and Robinson weren't expected to do much and have somewhat earned a chance to prove their worth again. Others have proven their worth adn with such should be cast aside from international rugby. Atkins, Brown, Harrison, Cudjoe and probably Fielden aswell now. Goulding, Briscoe and obviosuly Hall haven't really had chance to shine and i'd happily see them continue their international development. BUT the big one for me has to be that Macca goes and goes very quickly....

Actually, if anyone stood out over the three matches so far it is Graham. The guy was head and shoulders above any other British forward. Roby played well yesterday but was anonymous in the first two games. Tomkins was good in the first game but anonymous in the las two. After that I'm really struggling for positives.



Atkins has been found out as someone overhyped way beyond their ability, and his club success is testament not to his ability but to the absolute dearth of top class threequarters in the British game (see the other thread on 2013). Cudjoe looked as if he was bricking himself every time the ball came near him. Briscoe and Goulding looked average throughout. No speed, no evasion, weak defence, no real contribution.



Robinson played about as well as he's capable, which is ok, but nothing which is going to get us any wins at international level. Brown was pretty dire in both matches he played. Joel Tomkins has been a big disappointment, because I think he's a very good player and was looking forward to seeing him mix it up on an international level - but he just didn't show. Westwood, see above. Lunt and Harrison didn't have time to show much. Widdop showed why he can't break into a regular first team spot at his club. Hall was defensively at sea. Shenton showed glimpses but got injured too soon. Fielden managed to forget his good club form this season and go back to the international failure he's been since Mason chinned him. Burgess needs to hold on to the bloody ball. Ellis looked like he wasn't playing in the same team as every else, and was waiting for his Aussie mates to come pass to him.



That's pretty scathing, I know, but it was a poor show, and I don't think whitewashing this with "well, it was a good effort" "young team" "building for the future" etc, will help us. We need to actually address the problems rather than simply acknowledging them and hoping something turns up.

Roy, normally I am 100% behind your posts. But today, I find myself wanting to shake you. Sorry, but you I picture you frothing at the mouth in indignation at the moment.



We were outplayed, whats new. It was a young team, that did ok given teh lack of preparation and inept coaching.



The backline didnt gel, because it hadnt played together before and was up against the best in the world first game out.

I can't agree. Their backline plays together no more often than ours does. Yet their threequarters ran on to the ball, whereas ours took it standing still more often than not. When we went wide, we were hammered back or into touch. When they went wide, our defence backpedalled and often let them through. When they kicked, it nearly always found the ground or stopped dead in goal. We don't seem to have had a decent field-kicker since Andy Gregory.



I'm not frothing at the mouth at all. I'm a bit depressed. But mostly I'm concerned that we're using these excuses to brush it under the carpet. The whole attitude of British RL is to make excuses and hope something changes before the next disappointment. We should be actively tryign to actually do something about our weaknesses. Instead we celebrate them because they're weaknesses in young players, not old ones !

So that I don't get confused can you confirm that "straight from the resulting tap" equates to "at the end of the next set of six following an England drop out needlessly conceded when the ball was running dead for a 20m re-start".



Thanks

Actually Roy, their backline plays together at least twice as often as ours does, in much more high octane games with the SOO and ANZAC games.



We play France once and stuff them.

I think considering we had a weakened squad, a young squad being built for the WC, a coach who hasn't proved himself and a dodgy refereeing team the lads did really well. Its clear not all the players are up to scratch, but they put their all into it.



Ellis and Burgess weren't very impressive they've been quiet.



I think the only players I would criticise on this tour are Widdop and Atkins. Widdop clearly has the natural ability, but hasn't got the experience or knowledge to be blooded yet. Atkins has proved to be utterly useless on this stage! He has no conception of what his positioning should be in th defensive line and all too often was found really far out of position or standing too far back from the line which cost us tries. In attack he was inffectual. The one decent run he had was when England were on the attack after scoring a try. He made a good few yards at the end of an attack, two defenders were bearing down on him, nothing was on, our attack was steaming a head oin formation, their defensive line was broken and scattered. Did he take the ttackle for a quick ptb in a commanding position to potentially score? No! He decided to try run round Billy Slater, five metres away from the touch line.