I think tad might have been referring to the World Cup rather than the 4 Nations.

i was mate yes.

there were signs of improvement in the 4 nations although there was some off the wall selections and to much chopping and changing

I think you are really using rose-tinted glasses here. You are using the scoreline to at a point in time to suggest that the game was close - just as you did for the WCC against Manley. The difference was the Aussies were doing what was required to keep in the game whilst we were full out - as soon as the Aussies upped their game we disintigrated - the scoreline seldom lies and the quality of the plays from the Aussies showed the gap in ability.



We could have kept Sinfield where he was and the scoreline would have been the same - we never had the ball once Slater had scored.



We are short of whole backline - a hooker of really quality, two props that is how close we are.

Ah, sorry tad!

no worries bud

I'd agree, and I think thats a failing of Smith in that when he was at Leeds we looked as disorganised but we had the right players to pull that off.

Obviously we cant do that at International level.

Im more annoyed at Smith for resigning than I am at the mistakes he's made.

Were they? So they were deliberately playing below their potential for 65 minutes of the game?





I thought the Aussies kept doing exactly the same as they'd done all game. I saw it more as we let in a soft try to take it to a 12 point lead and then had some bad luck with Shentons injury, and lost our focus a bit. They scored again while we were unfocused and then we tried to get back into the game with short kick offs. None of which worked. If we hadnt done those short kick offs the score would have been different.





True, it seldom lies. This time it did.





Some tries were great, some were more just good vision and athleticism. Especially those near the end when we'd collapsed and they were on a roll.





We have a good pack. That much is obvious or we'd have been murdered in every game against both the Aussies and the Kiwis. I agree we're lacking a hooker and are also obviously lacking in the centres. But they aren't as far ahead as you seem to take great delight in announcing. If they were we wouldn't have beaten the Kiwi's and would have had 60 or 70 put on us.

The biggest difference for me is their confidence. Both mentally and their confidence with the ball. They look far more comfortable passing quickly and when they do pass it is invariably quicker and more accurate than ours.

Nail on the head and nobody has been more vociferous in his criticism of Smith than David in the past so this post speaks volumes to me.



If Smith were to blame David wouldn't have hesitated to say so.

I thought the team played with a great deal of pride and played as a team - Smith must take some credit for that - the second half in game one was very encouraging - he was also prepared to make the tough decisions - correctly dropping McGuire and Smith.



All in all Smith can be proud of what his team achieved IMO - there is simply not substitute for real ability - when the Aussies needed to they had another 3/4 gears - simply the finest rugby side in the world bar none in either code.

Agree also. The quality of players simply isn't available in too many positions. Individually I'd say we have 3/4 of the best forwards in the world - Ellis, Burgess and Graham would not look at all out of place in the Australian lineup. When you look at other young forwards around the place, in terms of the props and second row I don't think we look too shabby going forward, and replacing Morley and Peacock won't cause us as many problems as it once would.



But in key playmaking positions we're way behind - Tomkins and Eastmond are nothing like complete halfbacks yet, we haven't apparently got a single SL hooker who combines both a good rugby brain and snappy distribution, and our outside backs are average at best.



Even if we do magically produce athletes of the right calibre - like Senior - the problem doesn't stop there, because I've seen him flummoxed by pretty basic plays against Aus, simply through the speed and quality of execution. The issue there is not facing that quality regularly.



You also cannot ignore failing to compete for the full 80 minutes. Watching Leeds in recent years against 'lesser' sides we see this regularly - sides seem to do pretty well for some time but lose by 20+ at the end. It's exactly the same problem - inferior players will always struggle to compete for the whole game. Inglis could afford to go to sleep for 10 minutes against England - Bridge could not switch off for the entire game.

Agree significantly higher skill levels - they can do what we do only much faster and more accurately - how many of our passes were behind the receiver by the time he got the ball ?

Too much chopping and changing. No there wasn't. What we have deosn't work. So try something different. As they say, soo what you always do and you'll get what you always get. Which in this case is our @rses handed to us.