Serious question to any NRL officianados out there: How's Bennet improved that side, either collectively or individually? Yesterday's show was very reminiscent of previous efforts and in all honesty I don't think the team delivered much that one coached by a Macnamara, a McDermott, an Anderson or a Wane couldn't. Not having a great deal of interest in the game down under, can someone tell me where his strengths as a coach lie and what strategic improvements he's likely to bring? Cheers.

If widdop is in for his game management, it's terrible. I've not seen the game back on TV however he made three massive mistakes;

Kicking the ball out on the full from the kick off, I don't understand this obsession with trying to land the ball one yard from the dead ball line, for every one you win, 5 will go out on the full

The intercept

Passing down the blind side one yard from the try line when hodgson was set for a drop goal, dreadful 'game management'

Clearly others made mistakes, the Lomax missed tackle, Sarginson knocking on at a crucial time stand out.

For me, Williams and Percival should be in for next week

Two things cost us a game we should have won against mediocre opposition (on the day) - the amateurish mistakes (see post above) and the lack of creativity by the halves in that first 20 minutes or so when we should have scored two of three tries with that level of domination. One half back was anonymous, the other, Widdop, looked at his best during the game but in reality created nothing. Even one decent half back and we'd have created something.

So much doom and gloom and over the top criticism on here.

No, leeds fans don't think watkins is the best thing since sliced bread but it was stated before the tournament he had been framed as the scapegoat and when other players (sarginson, bombed 2 tries by not passing, S Burgess - the prodigal son producing numerous brain farts) produce as damaging mistakes and escape the same level of verbal abuse then it only backs up the scapegoat point and discredits those views.

NZ had a hit out against aus last week....we played france. We lost by a point and the game could have easily gone the other way.

The problem is that after decades of losing, we're too willing to excuse failure. Internationals aren't like a league season, where coaches get to talk about "improving performances" and "peaking at the right time". You get very few chances, and then you've won or lost. That's it. I don't watch England with the goal of seeing them get close, build towards something, or suffer another valiant defeat. I want them to win. Bennett's comments this morning were right: we need to learn how to win. Otherwise, we're becoming like France, where they get complimented on 'brave' performances, while getting tanked by 30 points. Patronising garbage.

We dominated the opening 30 minutes and didn't score. We gave the Kiwis two soft, soft tries they didn't have to work for. We had a whole 15 minutes to equalise which would at least mean we didn't have to beat the Aussies to stand a chance of the final, but we didn't take a single one of the many opportunities in that time.

I'm 46. I've never seen England or GB win a competition in my life. If we keep excusing failure, I'll never see one before I die.

At international level, being 'competitive' is just code for losing. We should have won yesterday. We had the forwards, the territory and the possession to do so. We need to stop hiding behind Johnson and make whatever ruthless changes are required to win. Enough losing.

I hear what you're saying, but everytime we almost beat NZ and Australia count for nothing.

My observation is we matched the kiwis in the forwards but the main difference was Johnson again. The weaknesses in the England team are in the centre's and fullback. Lomax, Sarginson and Watkins are decent SL players but not up to NRL/international standard. On a positive note I think England are benefitting from a few of our pack getting invaluable NRL experience.

Think some people need to look up the definition of scapegoat. I don't think a single person has blamed Watkins solely for the defeat or poor performances, just that he is utter crap in an England shirt - same goes for a few others.

But I guess we need stop in case we hurt Waktins' little feelings

The problem is we have no depth in the centres.Ryan Atkins? But at his age he isn't the answer going forward. The centres have been a problem for a while. The fact we played Bateman in the centres last year tells you all you need to know.

Having watched the game back on TV, individual errors cost us massively.
1. Sarginson's woeful defensive positioning for NZ's first try. I have no idea where he thought he was supposed to be or what he was supposed to be doing.
2. Lomax's missed tackle. The NZ player didn't even step, change direction or change speed. A player at international level should be making that tackle every time.
3. Widdop's interception pass. Just awful. Johnson would have been in his eye-line as he released the ball so he should have realised the pass wasn't on.
So three NZ tries as a result of mistakes that shouldn't be happening at this level.
Added to Widdop's poor decision on the last tackle when we were 1 point behind, Sarginson's inability to pass to Ryan Hall when he has a clear run to the try line and the kick-out in the full, it's clear we have some players who can't get through an international game without doing things that cost us points.
I'm not one for chopping and changing half backs, but I would be looking at a Williams/Gale combination against Scotland. However, playing Scotland is very different to playing Australia or NZ. I sense Bennett will stick with Widdop and Gale all the way through.
Without doubt, Percival has to come in for Sarginson. He looked completely out of his depth.
I'm torn on Lomax and Ratchford. Other than the missed tackle I thought Lomax made good metres for his kick returns.
Whatever happens, we are not good enough to beat Australia. We couldn't beat a NZ side with one or two world class players (Johnson, Taumololo) so we stand no chance against a team with Boyd, Thurston, Cronk, Smith, Inglis, Frizzell, Thiday etc.

We tried our best but the reality is all of the kiwi players perform at a higher level in the NRL. Johnson is different class to anything we've got and I think they'll be privately disappointed they didn't beat us by more points. Despite the defeat and costly errors we made I still think we performed nearer to our full potential than they did.

The result isn't what we hoped for but with several of our boys playing in an inferior competition it's hardly a surprising outcome. I think this is why someone as knowledgeable as Bennett played down England chances before the competition. The simple fact is we can match their effort and enthusiasm but collectively we're not good enough.

Thought the impact of the Burgess brothers of the bench was very limited. Cooper added a spark.

And should have done again.

Agree on Cooper. I don't think any of the Burgess brothers were at the level they showed in the last World Cup.

This needs to be said.

Blake Austin and/or Trent Hodkinson could have made a significant difference to the result yesterday.

As for England's issues in the centres, I appreciate that either of the Morris twins will be considered a step too far for many.

Widdop woeful. Sarginson shouldn't be anywhere near the first 17. Lomax was disappointing. All three Burgesses way short of the standards they should be setting. That's no shock though - they were atrocious with Souths this year.

England not good enough on the day.

Just my two pence - Percival is a really fine, polished young centre - he simply has to start against Scotland and Aus for me. Widdop is being scapegoated again but had a better game than the disappointingly anonymous Gale. Lomax had a fair game but the missed tackle leaves him at risk. I'm okay with the pack though I prefer Farrell to Bateman as a back rower. Wingers are fine also.

The only world class half on the field made the difference.

There were times we bent the Kiwi line & you just know Thurston, Cronk, Moylan etc would have swarmed all over the next couple of plays & turned the screw. Widdop & Gale could not.

Our centres didn't have much impact, but neither did Kenny-Dowall or Kata.

Looks like Johnson's drop goal was wide according to new footage.

Too much hysterical reaction to England's performance on here. There was a 1 point winning margin ffs. NZ scored an intercept too. It was very close.

No need for wholesale changes. Perhaps only Percival for Sarginson or Williams for Gale if fit. A bit of fine tuning and England can still win this.

There's more chance of Nigel Farage being elected president of the European Union.

I've checked my recording several times and it didn't look wide to me.

I'm not about to engage in wishful thinking either.

Given the ingrained culture of the RL demographic for screaming boooooo, offside, gerrem onside (but not our lads obviously), cheats, etc, if there was any legitimate evidence that Johnson's drop goal was wide, we'd already have a thread on here set to rival Joynt's Voluntary Tackle.

Not seen the footage but I was directly behind the sticks and seemed fine to me along with everyone else around me

My view of the halves for what it's worth (and no, I haven't got my amber and black tinted specs on!). Too much went through Widdop, Gale didn't get his hands on the ball enough. It reminded me a little of when Rangi Chase was put into the England set up (whether he should have or not is not the issue here). He was a maverick half who could spark a team from anywhere with his moments of magic, but when put into the England team was made to play a structure outside of his natural game will nullified him. Very similar to Gale yesterday, he can provide that spark, but seemed to have been told to play to a structure that doesn't suit his game. Did Johnson play to a set structure? No, he was allowed to play whats in front of him. Widdop needs to control the game and Gale needs freedom to take control when he wants and play what he sees at the time to provide that spark, something different. All class halves at times just go and do what they want, thats what sets them apart. A halfback playing to set structures for 80 mins is never going to change a game at international level, and so we may aswell go back to Matty Smiths boring play. I though Gale stood up well in defence though. I would be keeping the halves the same as I think they could compliment each other very well with more game time together. What we do in the centres I have no clue! On a side note, I thought both our wingers played well, with a special mention to McGillvary who I thought was our MOM by a distance.

Never wide while I have hole in my ****. Has Peacock been tweeting again?!

What a load of BS. Aside from Graham and maybe Hodgson, all our NRL players should be dropped for next week IMO. They were poor.