Not in the sense that say lyon is in drawing a man and passing, but Watkins has a fantastic offload and if not for some fantastic work by the NZ defence would have put Hardaker in.

The wingers playing outside Watkins scored 23 tries last year as many as Burgess scored.

There was 30 minutes before that on the red button.

Anyone who bags Chris Hill clearly doesn't understand rugby league. Arguably the best prop in Super League - rarely loses the contact either in attack or defence, has excellent footwork and a great engine for a big man. England need to use his passing game at the line a little more IMO, it's up there with James Graham's.

He wasn't excellent in defence at all. He was to blame for the Kiwis first try, and was it not for McGilvary saving him, would have been to blame for one in the second.

He is a special player, who has far more within him than he is displaying consistently. At international level you need to do much more than you do at club level. It would be such a waste for such talent not yo see the best of it.

how do you reckon?
wasn't Watkins left covering two defenders on his outside because McGilivary had dropped back?
Watkins moved out with the rest of the line, but the guys inside of him were unable to stop the play - how is Watkins to blame for that?
McGilivary was about 25m behind the defensive line on the short side when the ball got moved out to the overlap, and didnt move up at all.
Or who was the defender inside of Smith who let his man run up in support while jogging back half-d watching the play unfold? Lockers, was it?

how the hell was Watkins to blame for NZ's first try? What the hell were you watching? When NZ played the ball about 20 yards in, Watkins was literally the only player set in the defensive line against 7 NZ players. If you are looking for people to blame for that try McGillveray is far too far back to cover a kick that was never going to happen when NZ had stacked 7 attacking players against a 1 player defensive line and for coming in to tackle Luke when we had 2 men in the middle and no-one outside, Smith fails to execute a tackle twice allowing the ball to be shifted and O'loughlin stops his chase back, allowing Luke to come from behind him and take the ball on the inside.

It was a virtually none-existent defensive line and the only real 'mistake' that cost us was McGillvray coming in on Luke because we had Hardaker on Luke, Widdop covering the inside, and had McGillvray stayed he had Nightingale but even that wasnt a huge error.

However big Watkins heart is, it's certainly bigger than some posters' brains if this thread is anything to go by.

His performance yesterday was similar to Bateman's the week before. Defended well, made a couple of half brakes, but made some poor errors.

Some Rhinos fans are absolutely blind to our own players misgivings... Not one of our lads played to their potential for England & Watkins was poor yesterday...

Hill offers bugger all???

What series were you watching?

He thought Tautai would be one of best forwards in the league at Wigan, Bowen would win MOS, and Ben Pomeroy would be one of the best centres in the league....

not sure how you get that.
im sure everyone has agreed that Watkins was poor with the ball yesterday, made too many mistakes - just like Bateman the week before.
Hall played well enough all series imho, considering he never got any decent ball.
Zak wasnt as good as in attack as he can be, but his defence was good and its not like he had loads of ball in attacking positions or got loads of ball out the back - our forwards were barely moving the ball or offloading.

There would be no need to make excuses to why they hadn't played to their potential had they actually played to their potential, so I think we both know none played how we know they can

That's not true though is it! last week Bateman made 100 metres with ball in hand, I don't think Watkins made anything like that yesterday and as I've already stated only 1 pass to his winger in three games, and he has had opportunity in all the games to at least give them a run.

yeah, maybe he should have given them completely useless ball like Batemen did, after running his winger out of space

I made no mention of his metres, so I don't know you brought stats into it, I formed my opinion based on what I saw. Have the stats even been published yet? How can you disregard my comment based on stats without actually seeing the the stats from the game?

I can't believe that posters have slated Hill's performances so I'm not sure what they expect from a front row forward?
Maybe they would care to elaborate?

IMO Hill and Graham have been our best players of the series.
Both can take the ball into collision and win the ground, They both have great footwork going into the tackle, they both have a great passing game close to the defensive line, and they can both defend very well

Looks like a pair of top quality International props to me

I was forming my opinions on what I saw yesterday plus his performances v France, 1st test and last weeks stats. In general I'm sure you will acknowledge that his International performances have been way below his supposed "superstar" rating.

Being a good SL player doesn't mean you are going to be a good international player. Faz is a good SL player but I personally don't see him ever being a good international player.

Hill is very good in SL but he is an absolute plodder at the top level. You get good work from him but he generates no quick play the balls at all. Yes he is solid but solid doesn't cut it at this level.

If the Burgess boys are fit and Cooper continues like he has in the NRL and add Graham to the picture I can't see any way you can pick Hill.

Watkins I though was poor in defence as well. The first Kiwi try was his poor play that created the opportunity. He showed his opposite number the outside using the touchline as his extra defender and then allowed him to cut back inside him.

As I said it's great seeing him tear SL apart but he simply has not delivered in an England shirt despite the hype he is given.

Yet Wigan fans thought Tomkins should stay at FB if fit when he's just as guilty of the above.

As for your view on Hill, that's just laughable.

Well this went downhill even faster than I expected. Thought it would be at least Monday morning before individual players began to be pulled to bits.

I thought England were very good. They moved the ball well despite the heavy rain and so did NZ. The best thing about it for me was the determination the players showed and the team ethic. They all worked hard for each other and soaked up a lot of pressure before coming back strongly to take the game out of site.
As a Leeds supporter and an Englishman I am happy to retire to the off season with all the boxes ticked.

You might be right.....and I'm the first to admit none of the Leeds contingent (for whatever reason) did not cover themelves in glory. However, the basic fundamental question I always ask is would you want the respective individuals playing for your own club side.

Those that state they would not Hardaker, Watkins or Hall in their team are lying. Personally, of this winning non Leeds English contingent I would covet only [iBateman[/i (but not as a bluddy centre), [iWilliams[/i (because we know he can produce the goods at Stand Off, and for sure, rather him than the hugely disppointing Widdop - I have yet to see anything I would covet above our very own Sutcliffe for example), [iRoby[/i, [iGraham[/i, and the [iBurgess [/ibros.

MCGildary played well enough, but is not worth displacing Briscoe for; simlarly Smith is without a doubt no better than McGuire. Hill and Cooper are decent players, but not worth displacing Cuthbertson or Garbutt for IMO.

Then as for the apparent first choice English second rowers...pfftt! Give me Stevie Ward or Ablett anytime. On his Catalan performances I would once have coveted Whitehead, but less so on these England performances.

So that's Bateman, Williams, Roby, Graham and the Burgess bros. Can't say the rest of the England contingent have had me drooling in any way whatsoever. Even the apparent Man of the Series is not worth upseting the Leeds applecart for.

It has been an untidy winning series against an average-at=best NZ team, but I guess we should be happy for small mercys. It will go down as an historical win. Not convinced though for much more from this present set up.

Hall did what he could. Had nothing to work with in the oppositions half so left him doing his role of extra forward taking carries away from our line to give the forwards a breather.

He did this role well and in the first two tests he got little help from his other winger.

Nice feeling isn't it

Quote ="jonh" Watkins I though was poor in defence as well. The first Kiwi try was his poor play that created the opportunity. He showed his opposite number the outside using the touchline as his extra defender and then allowed him to cut back inside him. As I said it's great seeing him tear SL apart but he simply has not delivered in an England shirt despite the hype he is given.'" except that just isnt what happened. Watkins didnt show his opposite number the outside, Watkins had to cover the man on the outside, the inside man was clearly Smiths man. If Watkins commits to Kahu the ball goes wide and Nightingale is in acres of space with men on the inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LFwybZ4GA Watch that again and see your wrongness. There is a clear and obvious reason we conceded that try that is over any individual errors (o'loughlin giving up, Smith not effecting a tackle twice, McGilveray's positioning and decision to come in, apparently Watkins not committing to Kahu and leaving the man on the outside in space), We were short stacked and slow to get back so they stacked that side and executed pretty well.

Quote ="jonh" Watkins I though was poor in defence as well. The first Kiwi try was his poor play that created the opportunity. He showed his opposite number the outside using the touchline as his extra defender and then allowed him to cut back inside him. As I said it's great seeing him tear SL apart but he simply has not delivered in an England shirt despite the hype he is given.'" except that just isnt what happened. Watkins didnt show his opposite number the outside, Watkins had to cover the man on the outside, the inside man was clearly Smiths man. If Watkins commits to Kahu the ball goes wide and Nightingale is in acres of space with men on the inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LFwybZ4GA Watch that again and see your wrongness. There is a clear and obvious reason we conceded that try that is over any individual errors (o'loughlin giving up, Smith not effecting a tackle twice, McGilveray's positioning and decision to come in, apparently Watkins not committing to Kahu and leaving the man on the outside in space), We were short stacked and slow to get back so they stacked that side and executed pretty well.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"except that just isnt what happened. Watkins didnt show his opposite number the outside, Watkins had to cover the man on the outside, the inside man was clearly Smiths man. If Watkins commits to Kahu the ball goes wide and Nightingale is in acres of space with men on the inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LFwybZ4GA Watch that again and see your wrongness. There is a clear and obvious reason we conceded that try that is over any individual errors (o'loughlin giving up, Smith not effecting a tackle twice, McGilveray's positioning and decision to come in, apparently Watkins not committing to Kahu and leaving the man on the outside in space), We were short stacked and slow to get back so they stacked that side and executed pretty well.'" For me he has to cover the centre. It's a last tackle play Jerry had to drop if Watkins covers the centre the winger is left with a 1 on 1 with Jerry. It's a mute point anyway which we can debate. What is not up for debate however is that despite the hype Watkins has looked average at best at the top level, often anonymous and sometimes poor. For me he he has all the physical attributes but lacks mentally in particular his ability to retain concentration.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"except that just isnt what happened. Watkins didnt show his opposite number the outside, Watkins had to cover the man on the outside, the inside man was clearly Smiths man. If Watkins commits to Kahu the ball goes wide and Nightingale is in acres of space with men on the inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9LFwybZ4GA Watch that again and see your wrongness. There is a clear and obvious reason we conceded that try that is over any individual errors (o'loughlin giving up, Smith not effecting a tackle twice, McGilveray's positioning and decision to come in, apparently Watkins not committing to Kahu and leaving the man on the outside in space), We were short stacked and slow to get back so they stacked that side and executed pretty well.'" For me he has to cover the centre. It's a last tackle play Jerry had to drop if Watkins covers the centre the winger is left with a 1 on 1 with Jerry. It's a mute point anyway which we can debate. What is not up for debate however is that despite the hype Watkins has looked average at best at the top level, often anonymous and sometimes poor. For me he he has all the physical attributes but lacks mentally in particular his ability to retain concentration.