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.

I don't think Sam Tomkins deserves the critisism he's been getting in some areas since Sunday. I thought he was much improved, and one of our better players.
Charnley isn't perfect, he's decent, and he's not been as bad as some are making him out to be, although I do agree with the comment above regarding McGilvery, it's a shame he's not as good without the ball as he is with it.

Sam Tomkins and Hardaker are our two best backs and should both have been in the team from the Samoa game on. You didn't catch Australia leaving out one of Slater, Hayne or Inglis just because they could only play one of them at fullback.

The obvious option would have been to have Tomkins in the halves (for Smith) and Hardaker at fullback, so you gain a half-back who can run and a fullback who can defend one-on-ones. Tomkins is a lot better positionally and defensively than he used to be, but I'd put Hardaker's chances of stopping the Jennings try, for example, to be several times higher than Sam's.

However the halves seem set in stone, so failing that I'd play Hardaker on the wing. He's a better winger than Charnley anyway (just like Hayne was a better wing than Australian club wingers), it's just that, unlike Charnley, his all-round game is too valuable to be stuck out on the flank for his club.

In the back row I though Farrell went OK and so did O'Loughlin, though he wasn't on the pitch long enough given he's a central part of the team. Joel Tomkins has been an absolute waste of a selection. He was a good League player before he went to Union and he probably will be again but he isn't right now. He has to be replaced by Whitehead, who, again, should have been in from the start.

The other player who hasn't impressed me at all is Tom Burgess. There are several props sat on their backsides in England who could have offered considerably more, but presumably, like Whitehead, our coach hasn't seen enough of them. Chris Hill has been excellent but needs to do more minutes. We could do with Clark playing 80 as well, but if not bringing Ratchford off the bench and putting Smith to acting-half would offer more.

Tomkins; Hardaker, Watkins, Sarginson, Hall; Widdop, Smith; Graham, Clark, Hill, Farrell, Whitehead, O'Loughlin; G.Burgess, Cooper, Ferres, Ratchford

I would go something like this but would stick with T Burgess and have him in for Ratchford.

That's exactly what I was thinking, I would put Hardaker on the wing and Tomkins at FB. On Attack Hardaker would play wing and Tomkins could play his usual game, when NZ have the ball he could drop to FB. Having two FB's in the back 3 isn't a bad idea, Tomkins isn't bad under the high ball , but Hardaker is taller and better and has the bulk to carry the ball back against what is going to be ferocious kick chase that will target Tomkins. NZ bombed Australia to death, we have to address that, especially as we have looked slightly less safe than Australia in that department.

Unchanged side.

Can see the logic, bit much to expect guys who haven't played for six weeks to come straight into a high pressure game like this one.

I wouldn’t be messing about with the spine of the team at this late stage. We have a must win game coming up and we can’t afford to go into it with players trying to build up an understanding of how teammates play or with players in unfamiliar positions.

I can understand the desire to get Hardaker on the field somewhere but I don’t think he offers an improvement in the centres. On the wing he’d be in an unfamiliar position and could be exploited positionally. I happen to think Sam Tomkins has played alright at fullback in this tournament. All the fullbacks have looked a bit dodgy under the high kick. Going forward I think Tomkins is great at injecting into the line and providing the extra man. He may not be as good at the kick returns as Hiku and Inglis but his passing game is better.

The back row is our main area of weakness but I’m not convinced that the likes of Whitehead and Westerman offer any real improvement. Maybe Whitehead could improve on Joel Tomkins in attack but defensively I think he’s too much of a risk.

Up front Tom Burgess has always been the lesser of the props. He does take some stopping though which is crucial for tiring out the opposition. I don’t think we have any other prop options out there that could do a better job.

An unchanged side gives Joel Tomkins the chance to be underwhelming for three games in a row. Great tactics.

This whole debate is futile and misses the central point.

In the first half we played positive rugby, moved the ball about and the Oz defence with it. We were the better team. I dread to think what was said by McNamara at half time; we came out and played one man conservative rugby that was easy to defend against. It wasn't until we fell behind that we reverted to how we had played in the first half.

A golden opportunity blown by a lack of faith in ourselves I am afraid to say.

What is it with you guys and the Tomkins brothers?

Most Wigan fans are a bit surprised to see Joel in the team to be honest and reckon that Whitehead has earned his chance. However in Joel's favour is the fact that Wigan's defence improved massively towards the back end of the season when he returned. Now, I thought he did ok against Samoa, but granted was at fault for the Jennings try on Sunday, and was generally off the pace, but still came up with some big hits. Would you want to give Whitehead the chance in such an important game?

I think McNamara is going for the biggest pack he can muster against NZ - and maybe he's right to do so.

Agree Hardaker wouldn't be my option at centre, but even if he just played as an out and out winger I can't see how he would be a weaker defender than Hall or Charnley. He's a better tackler and has a good full backs instinct for where the game is going and he could offer a much better bomb defence. I don't see much risk, and the benefits are many. But it's done now so a pointless debate.