Bang on.

The problem is if not McNamara, then who?

Any coach with any reasonable reputation is not going to put that rep on the line in a thankless job. When the only measure of success / failure is whether you beat a team that is lightyears ahead of you both on and off the pitch, you're not going to have a mountain of CVs.

Surprised that Ablett has got a bit of stick. Although not outstanding, he got through his work ok. The only blot on his copy book was the silly penalty he gave away, but far from the worst performer. I'd have him in over Cudjoe, who I think had little impact on the game.

Sinfield looked good, especially after watching the replay. I didn't realise how dominant Hill and George were in that first 20 minutes. for me, Tom and Mossop didn't bring anything from the bench, and that's when we lost momentum.

Add Graham into the mix, and possibly O'loughlin, and I think the england pack looks pretty impressive

Oh, I totally agree. Sadly, far better coaches than McNamara have tried and failed. Just look at Tony Smith, for example.

I think the real issue here is in us thinking that we can realistically compete with the Aussies. Let's compare...We have a game played by a few folk who live along the M62 corridor, while in Aus, RL is almost a national sport. It's hardly a level playing field.

What's more, and to make the job even harder, we decide to dilute our national GB team down even further into England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

I doubt even with Superman in charge, we could win this, or any other world cup.

Cudjoe was solid in defence and scored a well-taken try, like the other 3/4s had limited opportunities partly because of lack of ball, partly the ground conditions, partly because they were up against a pretty decent defence . Certainly wouldn't pick Cudjoe out as better or worse than the other 3/4s.

Ablett, like all the rest of the subs, had little impact. Would still have him on the bench because of utility value. In our strongest team Graham and O'Loughlin should come in for Mossop and Tom Burgess (Graham to start, Sam Burgess second row, Hill and Westwood or Ferres bench). Roby should play 80.

I was expecting worst stick about Ablett to be fair when he gave away that penalty due to his already unpopular status from other fans.. But at least his wasn't as frustratingly annoying or needless as some of the others, particularly Westwood's. We were falling back under the cosh again at the time and after seeing Tomkins out jumped for one high ball you can maybe see why he tried to help his FB out.

With Ablett though, my worry was that they'll play him on the right side and they did. Whether it be 2nd row or centre I think Ablett has always looked better on the left side.

For me, McNamara has to make a brave decision on Gareth Widdop - either he plays him from the start or not at all.

Widdop is wasted from the bench, especially if he is being used to spell Roby. It completely reshuffles the halves, puts Sinfield into a less effective position at hooker and gives Widdop himself little time to get into the game and make an impact.

For me, the bench on Saturday (discounting the drinking issue) should have been Graham, T Burgess, O'Loughlin/Ablett and then one of McIlorum or Burrow. The latter two act as a straight replacement for Roby, in different ways, should you want to spell Roby whilst Burrow also offers cover for the positions that Widdop is there to cover.

That means that one of Widdop or Chase misses out.

I think some of the post-mortem doom and gloomk I've read around the intertubes is a bit over the top. I'm not sure how many scapegoats we should be looking for. It wasn't a bad performance.

Even allowing for the Ockers being a bit rusty, I thought we stepped up a level from 2008 and 2010. Realistically we weeren't going to wake up on Saturday morning and suddenly be the best team in the world. We lost a bit of control of the ball and our discipline in the 20 minutes or so either side of half time. Must do better, but I don't think that's personnel. More composure.

For me, there are now 2 objectives, assuming the rest of the group games are largely uneventful:

1) Try to beat a very good New Zealand side in the semi final. This would be a huge step forward form the last 2 world cups. I think we'll need to improve a bit on Saturday's effort, but I think this, while a tough ask, is an achievable target.

2) Live with the Aussies and compete for 80 minutes. Avoid silly mistakes and cheap penalties, and ask a few questions with all in hand (which we did on Saturday). Don't be overly conservative, but try to execute things right. Put ourselves in a position where we could prosper from a couple of iffy decisions or a slice or two of luck. Realistically, that's what it would take.

Personnel wise, Tom Burgess looked raw and lacked composure, but he's a big unit. I'd leave him in for the next couple of games to get some game time. He'll be better for it.

When players are available I'd bring O'Loughlin in for Ablett (who didn't do a lot wrong, but I'd want O'Loughlin in if he's fit and I thought Westwood, whil up and down gave us more than he cost us, and Ferres had some good spells) and bring Graham in for Mossop.

I don't watch NRL so I've only seen Widdop in an England shirt. Been a bit underwhelmed. In any case I think it should be him or Chase, not both. McIlorum to come off the bench, or another forward.

I think I have to agree with most of that El Diablo. Widdop may be good ( I don't know enough about NRL so have only really seen his england performances) , but I do think he is shoehorned into the team. Its that balance of quality, and people playing the correct positions. I can't say that Chase has impressed me that much either, so I wouldn't be upset if he missed out.

Saw Nothing from Mossop of note, so for me he'd make way for Graham in some capacity.

I like the idea of Burrow coming off the bench for Roby. The only problem is who defends the middle in his place? Is that sinfield as he must be doing that under the current system anyway?

O'loughlin will be straight in for Sam Burgess for his suspension. I'd anticipate he'd keep his place ahead of Ablett injury permitting.

I actually thought for the first time, that the old addage about us matching them in the forwards was true on Saturday. In fact it wasn't true, our opening forwards battered them. I just think that the forwards off the bench let the standard slip. Add Graham and O'Loughlin into the squad with Burrow scampering away from a George burgess dent in the defensive line and I thnk we have a chance. Think the fiji game will be a good warm up for the Kiwis, as they certainly looked like they enjoyed hitting the Irish hard.

Fiji will be an interesting test.

They physically dominated the Irish and had a massive size advantage up front, but when the Irish started to give them a bit of niggle back they were very indisciplined.

Matched up against an England pack that is more their equal physically, it could get very tasty indeed.

Going forward, I'd be tempted to pair Widdop with Sinfield. Chase is in the side to supposedly provide the unexpected, the moment of flair, but even off the back of some decent ball on Saturday he did nothing but ship it on all the time.

Whether it's McNamara's gameplan or his own inexperience of the big occasion, he looked nervous to the point of scared stiff to try anything out of the ordinary. At least give Widdop 80 minutes to see what he brings to the party.

So Widdop for Chase, Graham for Mossop, O'Loughlin for Sam Burgess are the changes I would be making for Saturday. I just get the feeling from listening to McNamara pre-tournament though that he might use the Ireland game as an opportunity to get everyone in the squad involved.

I hope not. We are here to win a tournament, not to give people something nice to tell the grandkids. Has to be best team available on Saturday, and build some unity and cohesion

You do realise you're blaming Charnley for the mistake of a linesman, don't you? Or does that not matter if the player isn't from Leeds? Ditto Tomkins being outjumped by a 6' 3" Inglis who, as the attacker, is always favourite in a one on one anyway. Funny how there's no mention of the same thing happening to Billy Slater at the other end or, again, does that not suit your agenda? And you wonder why Sinfield takes the flack from fans of other clubs. For the record the England team went well. Had the forward pass just before half time been ok there would have been a 12 point turn around. We lost by 8.

Hardaker for Charnley to act as full back when we're defending to try to deal with high balls?
We all know that Tomkins is vulnerable to those - just think back to the cup game when Sinfield bombed him to death & we won relatively easily.
But we do need him on the pitch as an attacking weapon.
Otherwise I agree with previous posters re Graham & O'Loughlin.
Plus it would be interesting to see how Burrow would upset the massive Fiji & Kiwi forwards.
If they got hold of him they'd fling him round like a rag doll but they've got to get to him first.

Cameron Smith was banging on about how glad he was to see Widdop on the bench rather than on the field. I'd drop him. He hasn't fit in the team from day 1. Moving Sinfield to dummy half to allow Roby a rest and get Widdop a game messes up our organisation. We need to have 2 hookers. You can leave Roby on, he's perfect used to playing with another hooker on the pitch - he did partner Cunningham after all.
Drop Mossop, Tom B, and Widdop and bring in Micky Mac, Graham and O'Loughlin.
That looks a better side for me.

I have to say the criticism of Tomkins for the first try seems incredibly harsh. The kick was beautifully placed, Inglis timed his arrival beautifully and is a ridiculous athlete. No full back in the world was getting a different outcome there. If I was being critical of the team then they perhaps needed to get more men in around that contest to try to seal off the ball. But it was as close to being un-defendable as you'll see.

Personally I'd rather people could park the club bias for five minutes every so often. Including you. Why would Sinfield take flak as some sort of revenge against the views of Leeds fans?

On a more personal note, can people please stop referring to "Micky Mac" as it makes me want to vomit.

Kthnxby

I think the main criticism of Charnley is his lack of urgency to react to that kick. Compare that with Billy Slater's effort in a similar situation.
I do agree though re Tomkins vs Inglis, only likely to be one winner there.
Compare Tomkins technique with Slater's raised knees in jumping to defuse bombs. Having said that, failing to deal with bombs is Slater's only slight flaw & that's solely due to his height.
But England need to learn from the NRL where the emphasis is kicking to Slater on his right side of the field not his left.
Easier said than done I appreciate.

No, he's blaming Charnley for putting the touch judge in a position where he had to make the decision.

A bit more urgency from Charnley and he would have got back to that ball with both feet well in play and given Robert Hicks (the same TJ who got a vital in-touch call wrong in the 2011 CC Final wasn't it?) no decision to make.

That Hicks got it wrong bears no relevance to Charnley's lack of effort to keep the kick in play.

There is sense in that though isn’t there? I appreciate the arguments in favour of continuity, but the way I see it there are two main arguments in favour of a bit of rotation,

Firstly to win this comp England need to play 6 matches in 6 weeks. That’s a decent amount of games to throw on at the end of a season. Some players may benefit from a bit of a rest .

Secondly, it keeps some of the back ups a bit fresher. Say Charnley goes down in injured a couple of days before the final. Would you want to throw Briscoe into a WC final without him getting a competitive run out in 10 weeks?

Also need to keep in mind that there may still be a couple of combinations he wants to look at. Which is fair enough. We don't play a huge number of friendlies like soccerballers.

Some players need game time (especially, I suspect the likes of Roby and Tom Burgess, who don't have huge minutes behind them). And we need a halfback partnership that works. Whih means committing to one and sticking to it, barring injury, from at least the Fiji match onwards.

Personally, I think your being far too generous, I would back Hardaker every time with that same scenario, or any other decent fullback. Granted he is much bigger than Tomkins, but still, the whole attempt at it was out of a childrens team.

I would have also backed Hardaker to stop the Morris try. Tomkins attempt there was really weak, easily stepped. And I don't say that with any bias, as I have seen Hardaker do it many times over last couple of years.

Tomkins however, looked great from an offensive point.

Im not so sure. We'll never know. But given a fair run (and actually Inglis arrived with greater momentum so it wasn't even that) Inglis leapt higher, is taller and bigger and stronger in contact. Caught under that high kick with Inglis baring down, a bigger guy (Hall, Monaghan etc) would have had a better chance, but the odds were much stacked in the attacker's favour. Especially when that attacker is probably the best in his position in the Aussie team I can remember since Mal Meninga.

On the Morris try, maybe a better tackle would have helped, but the defenders had a lot to do by that point, which had started with defenders being sucked in in the build up and were always going to be vulnerable to that step back in field as they rushed across. Morris is a very good finisher. Tomkins effort made it a bit easy for him, but he was always getting that down once he took the pass.

I was a bit 50/50 on that. I think Inglis was clearly the favourite to get the ball, think Tomkins could have made it a bit harder for him to take it so cleanly.

You misunderstand. I don't agree with the criticism of Sinfield and took it as the usual club bias. I actually came on the Leeds board to get a more balanced view of how people think he went but, lo and behold, saw exactly the same ludicrous 'blame apportioning' going on, albeit against Wigan players rather than Sinfield. My point was that the very people who were complaining about the disproportionate criticism of Sinfield were busy indulging in it themselves! Why are they surprised when fans of other teams do exactly the same. Kettle...pot an all that. However, I certainly wasn't suggesting that it was right or justified in any way.

As for Charnley, that is a ludicrous comment. He collected the ball and would have been able to return it comfortably had the linesman not made an error. In fact Ryan Hall uses exactly the same approach, as do many other players. My understanding is that it's so that they aren't returning the ball on the back of a hard 30 or 40 metre sprint back and, therefore, have a better chance to get round or break through the oncoming defenders. Whether you agree this is a better or worse tactic than sprinting hard and coming back at the defence with less energy is open to opinion but there's no proven right or wrong anyway. It's hardly as though he was ambling back! Either way to criticise him for a linesman's mistake is bordering on the ridiculous. Moreso, to put it forward as a reason for England losing! Actually, I said ''bordering on the ridiculous'; scrap that...it's gone over the border and is on it's way out the side!

Any critisism of sinfield is completely one eyed. Accross all the boards I have been reading how our weak half backs cost us the game (sinfield is too slow etc) most with this view clearly didn't watch the game and have a pre conceived idea of what the problem was. The only thing that cost England were the stupid penalties and dropped balls costing field position.

Personally my opinion before the WC began I would have had tomkins and sinfield in the halves and hardaker at the back. But other than that I would play sinfield and chase as I cannot see what all the fuss about widdop is about.

On sat I was impressed with George burgess and I was impressed with ferres. I was thinking he would be a penalty machine and not up to the job, but as I say he impressed me with his display