I'd get someone else in, but I'd still like to see him involved in the backroom staff, having someone involved who coaches in the NRL, and sees the opposition play every week can only benefit the squad, IMO.

We need a new coach, but will the candidates mentioned want the job?

Not if it's full time but may be if it's part time.
We only have a few games a year so part time should be ok, imo.

People talk as though the national coach actually does coaching - the reality is they shouldn't have to. Phil Gould said that he didn't do anything except work on a few combinations and moves for Origin, as the players at that level all knew their roles and where to play. International coaches would be the same.

We look to have a decent squad in the makings, especially with Burgess back, but the general clunkiness of the play is as much the responsibility of the players as the coach.

But the coach is responsible for the style in which we play.
The basic gameplan has to come from the coach.

Whether it all fits together nicely is, I agree, more out of his hands. And the "lack of cohesion" for want of a better word, is partly why I want England to play more games every year even if they're only against 2nd tier nations.

No, which is why McNamara got the gig in the first place.
Unless the role of head coach is allowed to be dual coaching job, we will only get "failed" coaches taking the job and although we all want England to some day beat the Aussies, we just dough fixtures to make it demanding enough for anyone to leave their position as a top SL or NRL coach to take it on.

Even when Tony Smith was in charge, who most would rate above McNamara, he very quickly split his role, as head coach, with the position of Warrington head coach.

Unless we can miraculously ramp up the International programme, it's likely to stay as a "part time" gig.