So is it proven once and for all?

[Angry_eel]

That having a great forward pack does not mean that your team will win. Also, you can win on the back of great backs.

 

[Billythekid]

That having a great forward pack does not mean that your team will win. Also, you can win on the back of great backs.

No. Englands forward pack wasn't that strong.

NZ have already proved that you can win with a strong pack alone.

Also backs can only win it if the forwards hold their own. Australias pack was as good if not better than Englands which allowed the backs to work their stuff.

 

[morgan123]

England's backs did cost them. The forwards didn't have any trouble at all getting England into the position to create good scoring chances.

In the first half and the period around which Burgess got his second we had more than enough ball on the Australia goal line. But did anyone ever feel like England would threaten never mind score in those situations? We had a 5 on 2 overlap at one stage and Tomkins chose a long looping pass to the winger which gave the Roos enough time. In attack England's back just stood still, starting when they received the ball. Far too easy to stop.

The issue is the personnel on the field. Shenton and Bridge aren't dangerous at Super League level never mind against Australia.

You can look back over the last 30 years and every evolution of the side has it deficiencies. In certain periods we have had superb backs, the likes of Offiah, Newlove, Davies, Robinson. Or we've had a great pack. But we have never in the 29 years I've watched them had a good 13 never mind a good 17. There is no depth.

 

[maccattack]

it wasnt the backs. It was the gap.


but i have to say that is the most impressive England I have seen for years.

They are getting angry and determined. Their day will come.

 

[watatank]

Australia won on superior talent across the board. The English forwards kept coming and kept them in the game but ultimately talent won out as it usually does.

 

[westie]

England's pack had them in front after 50 despite the halves having absolutely no threat inside the 20. Even Burgess' second came from Ellis ball-playing. They probably could have won too if their pack had been able to keep it up. The real error was the bench.

Crabtree didn't see enough time in the second half. And Wilkin... what the hell was the point. Why wasn't another unit on the bench. At that 50th minute mark when it was clear they were starting to tire, why weren't two boppers trundelling off the bench to continue the domination. Why were they tired after 50 anyway.

Smith f**k up IMO.