Also, if you watched the NZ game last week.Kevin Proctor got the ball on the line but didn't celebrate and everyone including commentators wondered why the game was stopped and bentham had gone to the screen.And the evidence showed he got it on the line so the try was given.

We blew what was our best chance, in a long time, of beating a very average Aussie team. After an overall good first half performance we lost our ambition in the second half and appeared to be content to defend our 8 point lead. We allowed Australia to gain momentum and failed to counter their changed tactics after halftime.

Our right side looked weak in defense with missed tackles from Joel Tomkins, Watkins and Hodgson and a crucial error from Charnley. Watkins took his try well but like Charnley otherwise failed to impress in attack. Clark twice took wrong options but we looked better when he was on the field.

Australia were lucky to escape penalties as they repeatedly floored Matty Smith well after he had made a kick with the main culprit being his namesake. This IMO put M. Smith off his kicking game which was poor in the second half and just played into Inglis's hands.

On the positive side Hall was outstanding with Sarginson not far behind him and our props dominated particularly in the first 40.

I would like to see a Charnley dropped for next week and also a change in our second row.

Agreed. Charnley looks more of a threat to England than he does to the opposition. Burgess was arguably the best winger in the competition last season, and certainly the best winger at Wigan.

Joe Burgess should have played this tournament from day one, he has been red hot this year.Charnley has not been anything like the past few seasons this year and although not doing too much wrong so far, he is dealt with easily.

I would even consider going Hardaker on the wing.Would provide two walls of protection for Tomkins on the bombs(seems all the rage at the minute) with him and Hall comfortable.

I like Charnely but today he lacked his usual pace and he jump way too early and not very high for two bombs, I don't reckon he's fully fit.

Still reckon J.Burgess is a bit green defensively and we've had enough issues that side (he usually plays the other side for Wigan) to throw him in. I'd go for Hardaker on the wing. Not played there for a while but he's one of those guys you feel can easily slot into other roles, and we all know his dealing with kicks is good and whilst they haven't formed a centre/wing partnership for Leeds I would guess they'd be some kind of gelling there with Watkins.

The other thing Hardaker gives you is physicality coming away from your own line. Carries the ball well, has good footwork and deceptive strength that you won't necessarily get with Burgess.

Nicely summed up.

It was a try. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just lying to themselves.

I thought it was a try but we shouldn't have been in that position needing it to win. Once again it's like the team bent over to the Aussie reputation.

Our second row has been poor in the 2 games. Tomkins and Farrell have offered little and I'd like to see them dropped, but can't see McNamara having the balls to do it. O'Loughlin also showed he's a penalty machine. The Wigan tough house tactics aren't suited to international rugby

Yes. The ball was on the ground and the hand (Or finger) was on the ball.

The problem on Sunday is with how Australia handle the video ref.
The ref decided it was a no try and the video ref was just asked how to restart play. The control over the decision making is held on the field, in the super league the video ref's have more influence and the ability to override.

Not sure if it was on the 'live' coverage but on the highlights last night Ryan Hall was saying part of the reason he didn't 'act' as though he thought it was a try because he would be 'owning up' that he definitely got the last touch and therefore that the Aussies would get the ball back if the referee decided he didn't think it was a try before sending it up.

Though the argument in the studio was if he had 'acted up' more, might it have made the ref rule it WAS a try and therefore being agreed upon as a try by the video ref.

In some ways it comes down to what others have said - that in ERL the video ref has more power to decide whatever they want to, rather than having to 'toe the line' with the on-field decision as it seems to be in ARL.

If I understand the difference and the discussion correctly (!)

In response to the OP it was undoubtedly a try. We should never have got in that position though. As a number of people predicted the second rows offer nothing going forward, they will offer even less against the more physical Kiwis. O’L added nothing to the attack, whether he is fit enough is debatable. Matty Smith has adopted the Paul Deacon model of doing absolutely nothing with ball in hand to avoid being found wanting. His kicking is average to boot. Charnley has been very disappointing, I’d put Burgess in there.

Like a few others, I don't particularly like the way the rules work in making that sort of brushing with the fingers a try. But that's the way they're usually given, so we should, according to the rules, have had the try.

Overall, I think we let the Aussies off the hook far too easily. They were there to be finished off after the break, and I think we lacked the belief to go and do it. Disappointing.

On a positive note, we were far better in our ball retention, and also much better defensively. Sarginson was a revelation. I rated him for Wigan this year, but I thought he was not ready for test level yet. Wrong.

The only changes we could make are on the wing, where I still don't think Charnley is fully fit and sharp yet (could bring Hardaker for broken field running and defence, or the electric pace of Joe Burgess) and maybe weigh up bringing in Whitehead, sacrificing some defensive fragility for more attacking threat. But I've been pleasantly surprised by Farrell.

I guess Ratchford for Smith is the only other change, but we're short of kicking options then and territory is key against the Kiwis. Smith is underwhelming with ball in hand, but we don't really have any organisers and kickers who aren't.

The Ryan Hall 'no try' wasnt the turning point. England's lack of ability to hammer home a stronger lead was.

Think the 2nd row will change next week. Farrell will be banned and Joel Tomkins has to make way.

Farrell has been cleared to play.

It was a try. I’ve seen them given for as much downward pressure as that in the past. See Jennings “effort” in the first half as an example. IMO both aren’t tries as there wasn’t any real downward pressure but it’s hard to judge. As a result if you apply the rules you must award the try if the scorer has hand or finger contact with the ball and no separation.

Of course there was no way an Aussie video referee was going to give it but we’ve allowed ourselves to be screwed off the field into letting the Aussies pick the refs they want.

For the game versus New Zealand I’d be tempted to replace Charnley and Joel Tomkins. I’m not convinced by Hodgson either but Clark doesn’t seem able to play the full 80. Watkins needs to smarten up a bit but I expect playing opposite Jennings was a shock as there aren’t any centres that are quicker and better on their feet than Watkins in SL.

On Hardaker I’d like to see what he can do at Test level but aren’t sure where I’d put him. Widdop and Smith could both be better but I’m not sure moving Sam Tomkins into the halves is an answer.

Probably not. The only exception would be if England had trained a fair bit with him playing that role. I doubt they will have but if by some miracle they have then it's worth a trial even if it doesn't win us the game. Because if England put in a performance similar to those against Australia and Samoa then they will lose in any case. And it is something that needs to be looked at prior to the WC because good a player as Tomkins is, he's not setting the world alight from full back.

It was a try plain and simple. The point of having video evidence is to give the right call. It didn't look like a try at first and even Ryan didn't think he'd got it, but all of that is immaterial when you view the evidence.

Hall was superb, as were the pack. But for those who think Burgess is better than Charnley - no way. Burgess made more errors than anyone in the Wigan team last season. Not ready for the test team yet IMO.

Charnley has been on fire since coming back from his injury. Whoever plays outside Watkins will get no decent ball anyway. For all his many attributes, passing isn't one of them. Ask Tom Briscoe.

Charnley hasn't been a patch on his previous season's form. I thought he was the best winger in SL in 2013. I wouldn't put him in the top 5 at the moment.

Whoever lines up on the right wing on the weekend will be required to mark big Manu.We need someone secure defensively first and foremost.

This is again why i would put Hardaker out there.With his safety under the kick and kick return ability he stands out as the safest option for this game.

And yet despite missing over two months of the season he ended up with more Super League tries than the much feted Burgess. The only reason he didn't top the scoring charts for this season was his injury. Because his scoring rate actually went up upon his return.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm not sure you have any evidence (beyond a 'feeling' that Josh isn't as good). The stats don't back you up.

As an English man I would have given the try.

Thank you, very generous of you. The stats say Makinson & McGillvary are better wingers than Ryan Hall. Actually I think the latter is probably the most underrated winger in SL. If his defence was a bit better I would have him in the squad for sure.

I notice on the Wigan board you say all the Wigan lads played well. Now, unusually for a Wiganer, you normally talk a fair bit of sense, but that is one ridiculous statement.

seems tobe a constant from pie eaters, Watkins is the weakest link, all the wigan lads had good games (your words on your forum) both tompkins brothers are showing what exactly J Tompkins should not be in the 17 and Sam is not a fullback who inspires confidence under the high ball, different opinions on different forums, Zak should be fullback with Sam in the halves

I too think Charnley is a better winger than Burgess.
Just because ha has not set the world on fire in the two games he has played does not mean he should be dropped for Burgess.
I reckon if Burgess had been picked ahead of Charnley at the start there would have been a bigger outcry.
I personally would have Charnley at Leeds ahead of Briscoe but that aint going to happen.
The only other logical move is to put Hall up against Manu with maybe Hardaker at LW.
Other than that maybe Hardaker to FB with Tomkins in the halves at the expense of Smith.
Whitehead for his attacking skills instead of Ferres or Tomkins in the SR.
SOL needs to improve considerably and won`t be left out unless injured.