Watkins doesnt have to cover the centre at all in fact he expressly shouldnt commit to the centre, because that creates space on the outside leaving nightingale in acres of space with men on his inside. Watkins commits to Kahu and that ball goes outside to Nightingale, back inside to Luke and he walks over.

Watkins defended that brilliantly, his positioning meant that Kahu had to come inside where Smith should have executed the tackle, and had offload to Luke which was by far the most difficult option.

Had Smith executed the tackle on HIS man, that try doesnt get scored, had O'loughlin not given up the chase he would have tackled luke and that try wouldnt have been scored, Had McGilvary covered his man (i.e done what Watkins did) then Luke would have had to beat Hardaker to get over and that try would likely not have been scored. All of those were only options because of Watkins not committing to Kahu. But they were also very very difficult for England to do, and NZ executed brilliantly. None of those would have been necessary had the entire defensive line not been so out of position.

It isnt a point that is really up for debate, its a nonsense idea that Watkins should throw himself at the centre when there is a defender on his inside and an overlap on his outside. Its an idea someone would only put forth if they were scratching and searching for some kind of back up to their ridiculous position.

Watkins dropped a lot of ball in slippery conditions. It happens, His ball retention isnt his greatest skill. He also got outside his man a few times, he made space on his inside a few times, he defended well covering a couple of times for a winger on his debut who wasnt used to the swing defence he was been asked to play.

As for looking average in previous internationals, did you not watch see the angle of his run when going over in the WC semi? Breaking 3 tackles to go over against the aussies in the 4 nations last year?

Mate you are right but why bother? His comments are totally agenda driven.

It was a number of factors for that try.

Firstly we commit 3 guys to the tackle and they don't dominate the ball carrier which leaves Roby scrambling back in defence whilst the ball is already being passed from dummy half.

Secondly to compound it both Tom Burgess and O'Loughlin are too slow to realise we were short on that side. It was 7 NZ players to 2 so both Watkins and Smith were on a hiding to nothing. It was a similar problem on the previous play with 8 NZ guys against 4 England guys but the NZ ball carrier just ran it up instead of spreading it wide.

After the break then McGillivery shouldn't be coming in to get a guy who Hardaker could get and made it an easy decision to pass to the try scorer. When Hardaker did a post match bit with Jon Wells he talked about how he likes to back off and give the attacker more time to think instead of making the decision for him and it allows his fellow defenders more time to come help out. If McGillivery hadn't bolted over straight away it makes life much harder to score that try with Hardaker and Widdop coming across.

Interesting if you watch the replay of the try from the camera angle from behind the posts. Just as the NZ player is breaking Smith's tackle, O'Loughlin just has a little pull on the back of one of the New Zelanders shirt that halts that Kiwi adding to the NZ numbers in support.

Wonder what Wigan fans think of O'Loughlin trying to pull on the shirt of a support player?

Quite! Massive slice of double standards coming up!

I don't understand what the issue is with the man or the series trying to pull someone back to stop a try.

Can someone please explain.

love it!

Clearly England's biggest weakness in attack and defence is out wide. We played with a bit more width in the 3rd Test but it never really looked like England were going to create overlaps or structure plays good enough to get a winger over. Similarly England's backs look particularly clueless as a unit when the ball is spread wide.

We clearly have a pack capable of matching Aus/NZ now - even before the better Burgii play. However, we seem to get stuck into the mindset of playing through the middle because the forwards are making yards, rather than using yardage and quick PTBs to get width into the game.

Watkins can do better than he did (I'm not sure he looks 100% fit), as can others, and for England to beat Australia we need as many players as possible to play out of their skins.

Oh those Rugby Gods may not agree with you.

And that is down to the coaching.We have a three quarter line now capable of causing problems yet not one of them scored or looked like scoring a try in this series.We need a new head coach to take us to the next level imo, we are very close now i just don't have faith In McNamara and Lowes getting us on the other side of a close defeat against the big 2 at full strength.

My point exactly.

We beat a very poor weakened NZ team.....and only 2 out of the 3. just! Apart from the one Burgess brother, England were picking from strength.

Next year we can add:
S Burgess
G Burgess
Tomkins
Reed

I think anyone who expected England to put on an expansive gameplan featuring a ton of back line moves and lots of ball movement, in the deciding test of a series in torrential rain, with two half-backs who hadn't played together for twelve months was in cloud cuckoo land.

It's like saying that England were picking from strength when they had arguably four of their best 17 missing. And what kind of idiot would do that?

It was good to win a series, but it felt like a hollow victory. We have a lot of improvement to find if we are going to seriously challenge in the four nations and beyond that the next RLWC. Granted we have some very good players to come back into the squad, but under the current coaching team......?