Not all bad. On the way out of the East Stand I saw Arthur Beetson on the concourse and shook his hand. One of the best ball handling forwards you could ever see, and a personal favourite.

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"IMO if Inglis had been given the ball that Shenton or Bridge had, they wouldn't have been able to do anything either. It's extremely harsh to judge Shenton or Bridge as attackers when they are given absolutely nothing to work with. And the notion that they weren't given anything because we don't think they could do anything is also wrong. At the very least they would be making their opposite numbers have to work in defence. But what we did was pretty much give their 3/4s the shift off in defence so they were fresh for their ">attacks.'" I suppose there's chicken and egg there. Do they not attack because we don't give them ball, or do we not give them ball because they can't attack ? I think there was another key issue last night about the way the threequarters played : when Thurston and Lockyer take the ball, they do traditional half-back things, like standing deep to receive to give themselves space and then running sideways across the pitch looking to put runners in gaps. As we saw in the last twenty yesterday, they had no shortage of backs hitting those gaps. The reason Inglis, Hodges and Slater made so many breaks is because they were hitting passes from the halves at pace in holes. Contrast that with our halves. Eastmond and Tomkins both took the ball close to the PTB so the rush defence gave them very little time. Then their choices were either to ship it from a standing position - esentially just losing us yards and not challenging the defence - or to go for the individual effort, stepping, ducking, trying to break the line themselves, which against an international defence isn't going to happen. I think it was really noticeable that our best fifteen minutes at the start coincided with Eastmond playing more of a creative role, running flat and turning balls inside and outside for runners to hit gaps. We didn't do it as well as the Aussies, but it was working for us. However, after that first quarter we saw almost none of that. That's partly about the fact that our threequarters and second-rows don't run at gaps like the Aussies do, but it's also about what we expect from halves in this country. We tend to go for small, nippy blokes who can see an opportunity for themselves, or are good at backing up, but a creative half like Thurston or Lockyer ? Who was the last one you can remember ? I'd say Goulding. Any advances on him ? We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be maintained.

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"IMO if Inglis had been given the ball that Shenton or Bridge had, they wouldn't have been able to do anything either. It's extremely harsh to judge Shenton or Bridge as attackers when they are given absolutely nothing to work with. And the notion that they weren't given anything because we don't think they could do anything is also wrong. At the very least they would be making their opposite numbers have to work in defence. But what we did was pretty much give their 3/4s the shift off in defence so they were fresh for their ">attacks.'" I suppose there's chicken and egg there. Do they not attack because we don't give them ball, or do we not give them ball because they can't attack ? I think there was another key issue last night about the way the threequarters played : when Thurston and Lockyer take the ball, they do traditional half-back things, like standing deep to receive to give themselves space and then running sideways across the pitch looking to put runners in gaps. As we saw in the last twenty yesterday, they had no shortage of backs hitting those gaps. The reason Inglis, Hodges and Slater made so many breaks is because they were hitting passes from the halves at pace in holes. Contrast that with our halves. Eastmond and Tomkins both took the ball close to the PTB so the rush defence gave them very little time. Then their choices were either to ship it from a standing position - esentially just losing us yards and not challenging the defence - or to go for the individual effort, stepping, ducking, trying to break the line themselves, which against an international defence isn't going to happen. I think it was really noticeable that our best fifteen minutes at the start coincided with Eastmond playing more of a creative role, running flat and turning balls inside and outside for runners to hit gaps. We didn't do it as well as the Aussies, but it was working for us. However, after that first quarter we saw almost none of that. That's partly about the fact that our threequarters and second-rows don't run at gaps like the Aussies do, but it's also about what we expect from halves in this country. We tend to go for small, nippy blokes who can see an opportunity for themselves, or are good at backing up, but a creative half like Thurston or Lockyer ? Who was the last one you can remember ? I'd say Goulding. Any advances on him ? We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be maintained.

Quote ="Roy Haggerty":2u6b5o0pI suppose there's chicken and egg there. Do they not attack because we don't give them ball, or do we not give them ball because they can't attack ? I think there was another key issue last night about the way the threequarters played : when Thurston and Lockyer take the ball, they do traditional half-back things, like standing deep to receive to give themselves space and then running sideways across the pitch looking to put runners in gaps. As we saw in the last twenty yesterday, they had no shortage of backs hitting those gaps. The reason Inglis, Hodges and Slater made so many breaks is because they were hitting passes from the halves at pace in holes. Contrast that with our halves. Eastmond and Tomkins both took the ball close to the PTB so the rush defence gave them very little time. Then their choices were either to ship it from a standing position - esentially just losing us yards and not challenging the defence - or to go for the individual effort, stepping, ducking, trying to break the line themselves, which against an international defence isn't going to happen. I think it was really noticeable that our best fifteen minutes at the start coincided with Eastmond playing more of a creative role, running flat and turning balls inside and outside for runners to hit gaps. We didn't do it as well as the Aussies, but it was working for us. However, after that first quarter we saw almost none of that. That's partly about the fact that our threequarters and second-rows don't run at gaps like the Aussies do, but it's also about what we expect from halves in this country. We tend to go for small, nippy blokes who can see an opportunity for themselves, or are good at backing up, but a creative half like Thurston or Lockyer ? Who was the last one you can remember ? I'd say Goulding. Any advances on him ? We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be :2u6b5o0p">maintained.'" , but for some reason when we come to internationals we dont , Basically it comes down to the speed of the defence , when pressure is put on us we just dont have the time to play that way Yesterday we stopped the Aussies from playing that way for the best part of an hour , after that , well , men against boys icon_rolleyes.gif" alt="icon_rolleyes.gif" title="Rolling Eyes" />

Quote ="Roy Haggerty":2u6b5o0pI suppose there's chicken and egg there. Do they not attack because we don't give them ball, or do we not give them ball because they can't attack ? I think there was another key issue last night about the way the threequarters played : when Thurston and Lockyer take the ball, they do traditional half-back things, like standing deep to receive to give themselves space and then running sideways across the pitch looking to put runners in gaps. As we saw in the last twenty yesterday, they had no shortage of backs hitting those gaps. The reason Inglis, Hodges and Slater made so many breaks is because they were hitting passes from the halves at pace in holes. Contrast that with our halves. Eastmond and Tomkins both took the ball close to the PTB so the rush defence gave them very little time. Then their choices were either to ship it from a standing position - esentially just losing us yards and not challenging the defence - or to go for the individual effort, stepping, ducking, trying to break the line themselves, which against an international defence isn't going to happen. I think it was really noticeable that our best fifteen minutes at the start coincided with Eastmond playing more of a creative role, running flat and turning balls inside and outside for runners to hit gaps. We didn't do it as well as the Aussies, but it was working for us. However, after that first quarter we saw almost none of that. That's partly about the fact that our threequarters and second-rows don't run at gaps like the Aussies do, but it's also about what we expect from halves in this country. We tend to go for small, nippy blokes who can see an opportunity for themselves, or are good at backing up, but a creative half like Thurston or Lockyer ? Who was the last one you can remember ? I'd say Goulding. Any advances on him ? We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be :2u6b5o0p">maintained.'" , but for some reason when we come to internationals we dont , Basically it comes down to the speed of the defence , when pressure is put on us we just dont have the time to play that way Yesterday we stopped the Aussies from playing that way for the best part of an hour , after that , well , men against boys icon_rolleyes.gif" alt="icon_rolleyes.gif" title="Rolling Eyes" />

We matched them for an hour, but then the class of there backs took over. Slater was unbelievable, Inglis was just swotting our players off and Hayne was given to much space to run. Best English player was Burgess by a mile. Graham did alright apart form that shocking pass to Thurston and Eastmond was lively. Think were more than a match for them in the forwards but they are lightyears in front in the backs.

Quote ="Roy Haggerty"We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be ">maintained.'" Agreed that is one of the biggest problems with RL in this country, especially for halfbacks, playing Eastmond at 7 on the biggest stage is an example of this, a fine player but just dosnt offer the basics that Thurston or any number of options the Aussies could field, if Billy Slater was English and had come through the ranks at a SL club I bet he would have played at 7 last night despite lacking some of the skills needed, we tend to try and just fit players in at all levels of the game in this country, if you can beat a man it dosnt matter were you play, the Aussies have a deeper level of understanding at all levels in opinion, especially with positions and roles of individual players.

Quote ="Roy Haggerty"We have some serious issues about the way the game is coached in this country, and what we expect of threequarters, fullbacks and half-backs. Coaching these basic skills and a basic understanding of what is required of the position is something that has to start early and be ">maintained.'" Agreed that is one of the biggest problems with RL in this country, especially for halfbacks, playing Eastmond at 7 on the biggest stage is an example of this, a fine player but just dosnt offer the basics that Thurston or any number of options the Aussies could field, if Billy Slater was English and had come through the ranks at a SL club I bet he would have played at 7 last night despite lacking some of the skills needed, we tend to try and just fit players in at all levels of the game in this country, if you can beat a man it dosnt matter were you play, the Aussies have a deeper level of understanding at all levels in opinion, especially with positions and roles of individual players.

Andrew Johns gives his opinion on why we lost and any one watching would have said exactly the same thing. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/">www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/same-old-story-for-hapless-poms/story-e6frext9-1225797950424">www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5797950424 Apologies if this has already been posted but cant be bothered looking through all the pages.

Andrew Johns gives his opinion on why we lost and any one watching would have said exactly the same thing. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/">www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/same-old-story-for-hapless-poms/story-e6frext9-1225797950424">www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5797950424 Apologies if this has already been posted but cant be bothered looking through all the pages.