Simple question really, the entire team seemed lethargic after the non-test that was the French, so do you look to try and swap things around, or keep the same 17 (barring injuries) as they won in the end, and other players would be undercooked in theory if they were to come in now?

Given the options, probably not. Westwood for Whitehead perhaps.

Actually edit.....they used Hall as an extra forward taking the ball up like he does at Leeds. Therefore I'd say perhaps pick McGillivary over Joe Burgess to replicate that on the other wing.

I would change much if possible. Putting Westwood in the back row to had some size, and I'd also consider swapping Burgess and Hall around.

Exactly what I've been saying for weeks,
How many times in international Rugby League does the winger get set free to run in from long range, not often!

Compare that with the number of times a low centre of gravity and raw power is needed to force your way in at the corner. Add to that the type of work bringing the ball out of our 30 in the way Hall did tonight and you see just how much more value McGillveray would be to England.

Jermain tops the stats on tries, carries, metres and is a superb defender who often demolishes wide running second rowers.

I wouldn't play Westwood, certainly not over Whitehead.We should be building for the future now and as good as Westwood is/has been, at 34 he doesn't have long left in an international shirt.Just stick with the team for me.

Maybe Ferres starting for one of Faz/Whitehead but it's tough to see us changing too much when this group improved as the game went on.

There's 5 or 6 players that can produce a lot more which is actually very encouraging.

I would like to see every player in the team get a chance to play especially Jerry and Gale. If we win the 2nd test then I don't see a Problem in dramatic changes for the 3rd test but do we really want to be switching a winning team? I agree on Jerry over Burgess tho as he is more of a extra forward winger.

Would personally like to see McGillvray get a run and see how he goes as been very mpressed with him this year. I thought Burgess was pretty quiet tonight (not bad as he did everything he had to do, just not the Burgess we have seen at Wigan this year) but to be fair to him he didnt really get much ball which makes it a lot harder for a winger to stand out

I guess if something isnt broke dont fix it, thought down the middle we were very good tonight - Graham, Roby, Hill, Burgess all looked dominant and did a job on the big NZ pack & on the back of that Williams (who was MOM for me) and Widdop laid a good platform. I think we will see a more expansive England as series goes on, and from that point of view would like to see a bit of consistency in team selection rather than just rotating for the sake of it. The only change I would consider in forward pack would be Mike Cooper, again didnt do anything really wrong but not sure he is a test standard player

Don't really see the need for both Hodgson and Roby, when Roby can do 80 good minutes.

Would rather have another big forward on the bench to really hammer the Kiwis relentlessly.

Depends on injuries to Cooper etc....

Maybe they shouldn’t have a Leeds winger outside a Wigan centre & visa-versa, then they may get a little service.

I see your point, however when Roby took the knock today it was lucky we had Hodgson to bring back on at the time. Hooker is such a key position and in real intense forward battles like tonights, i can see the logic in having two hookers in the 17 especially when both are of a high quality.

Huh, I don't think that is the issue... it was just one of those games where everything goes up the middle. Don't recall SKD or Nightingale doing much either.

For me, I think we need better attack. That suggests Gale in for Widdop, and Cudjoe in for Bateman. I'd probably shuffle the pack to change Farrell for Bateman in the middle.

If Tomkins is fit for next week I would try him at full back with Hardaker moving to centre, Bateman didn't offer much to the attack. George Williams looks very promising but I.m not sure about Widdop, Gale will obviously replace him if Widdop doesn't offer more next week.

Only managed to catch the last 15 of the game on TV, from what I saw from Widdop was him doing a lot of crabbing, and nobody really offering him any options

Don't think we should be messing around with the halves.
Both Williams and Widdop had a decent game and with them being a new combination, they need to have as much game time together as possible.
It's a pity for Gale as he's had a good season with Cas but, we shouldn't change things for the sake of it.

Square pegs in round holes there. Hardaker's weakest point is probably his awareness of others and passing. he will be wasted in the centres. You either choose an attacking flair fullback (Tompkins) or a defensively sound full back (Hardaker). Personally I would choose Hardaker due to Tomkins not playing for an eternity.

Should remember that for Williams, Widdop and Hardaker they're still very new to one another. Unrealistic to expect a 1,6 & 7 to be hitting off straight away in attack especially when two of them are playing in their first meaningful England game. I'd stick with that trio and judge them at the end of the series where hopefully you see them starting to gel more as a unit.

Tomkins is out for the series. I agree that McGillveray would be a good change. I'd also take Bateman out of the centres. Arguably he should go in the pack but he clearly suffered yesterday on a few occasions in attack when his lack of experience saw him take the wrong option. I still think Shenton should be in there but as he's not in the squad then Cudjoe should go in.

I was wondering why Shenton was not picked.
Given the line up I would not mess with the halves or with FB.

Was surprised to see Bateman in the Centres, but don't recall him doing anything particularly bad.
I think you have to stick with it unless of injury, it's not a world cup were you can try a few things in the early rounds, we need to nail it next week. Then you can see if there are better options.

Changes I would make are:

Jermain Mc for Burgess (Burgess had very little go forward and didn't go looking for work)
Currie for Farrell (Farrell is too small for me at International level, made a lot of tackles, but that is due to NZ targeting him as a smaller guy who cannot dominate the tackle, allowing a quick PTB)
Cudjoe for Bateman (Bateman doesn't have the core skills needed to be an International Centre. Cudjoe would give Whare more to think about)
Bateman then moves to replaced SOL (SOL gives too many penalties away. The one on Taupau on our line was just stupid)

Pretty sure that unless injuries occured, we'll keep the same team, and same gameplan, then when it doesn't work, we'll say that the halfbacks are no good and scratch heads for a "Plan B" for the final game.

If by 'core skills' you mean footwork, ball-handling etc, then I'd argue Bateman is just as skilful as Cudjoe, if not more so, the fact that he's nominally a forward

notwithstanding.

Last season:
Bateman: 88 tackle busts, 14 clean breaks.
Cudjoe: 59 tackle busts, 11 clean breaks

I think it will only be injuries that will force McNamara to change the team.

McGilvary for Burgess would be mad! The Kiwis would bomb McGilvary all game knowing SKD is around 6'4" and will outjump the Hudds man every time. Burgess is 6'5" and faster.
Cudjoe and Currie and no where near International standard.
The one ommision I was surprised at was no Shenton and the fact that he's playing Bateman at centre instead of a man who's had a very good season and is an International calibre player.

Never mind change the team, imagine how good England could be if they had a top quality coach.

The Kiwis targeted Farrell. They ran at him all game, making fairly good metres on him despite him not missing too many tackles. Would playing Whitehead on his side and Ferres on the other work? Saying that he didn't have a bad game and actually didn't give that many penalties away like he usually does.