roopy wrote:
The radio commentary I listened to was terrible.
All they talked about were the areas where they thought England weren't matching Australia, and it basically sounded like Australia should have won by 40 because they were better in every aspect apparently.
Being honest they were generally ( better in all aspects) of the game.
We did not have a game plan, that became evident from quite early in the game. I know that the team did not have anything like the Aussies preparation, but whose fault is that?
Our scrum half was out of his depth and really was a very weak link for us, He ought to have opened the scoring for England but tried a short pass with the line at most ten yards away and a pretty clear run to it. He did not have the confidence to take the opportunity and that reflected throughout his game.
Another player that disappointed entirely was Gildarts wing partner who had nightmares with any high ball coming his way, terrible positioning sense and a pretty weak game overall, he was as someone else has said given a couple of awful balls from his centre for which he should be exonerated from the outcome of, but really he did seem the poorest player on the field, bar none.
Our F/B looked good and the centre's were as good as if not better than their aussie counterparts. WE looked better when Ward was off and the wigan lad was in at hooker,. Generally the forwards tried hard but were clearly second best throughout for the greater part the game.
I thought that we were definitely short changed by the coaching set-up, if there was any and did not really get going until it was too late, and that did not arise purely because penalties were awarded.
