Widdop will probably keep his place but we're desperate for him to produce something. He's been ordinary so far this series and is playing with little control. I thought he'd form a balanced pairing with Williams but they've both looked like they want the other to take the lead.

Smith has been bang average for us this year but he should (hopefully) bring a bit more stability. He'll get earlier ball to his outside and if his kicking is on it could be useful. The weather is forecast to be horrendous on Saturday and he's produced some very strong displays in wet conditions in the past.

I really don't think the game being played at the DW is a good enough reason to go with Williams and Smith as a starting pair.

Williams has had a good year but he's not yet that good a player that you just accommodate his disappointing season HB partner in the hope that it makes Williams play better.

as much as i think we should be moving away from the likes of westwood, there is still a series to win, and i would have thought westwood should be in for his experience if nothing else,
picking smith over gale, makes no sense at all, if gale played for wigan he's be a shoe in!

And some people go mental when you refer to the coach as McBanana. These are the reasons why. The guy is absolutely clueless.

Why move away from players like Westwood? If there's a test match to be won the best 17 should play despite of age

Exactly. Never understand this planning for the future rubbish. You play in the present and to win.

I'm one of those people, I think McNamoron is more appropriate.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idea behind Smith is to take some of the responsibility for organising and general kicking off Widdop and therefore letting him concentrate on getting the ball into danger areas. Gale might also be able to do that, but it would be a big ask in his first Test.

To be fair to McNamara he made a gutsy call in Williams - he could easily have gone for Gale/Smth from the off. I don't think anyone was questioning Widdop before the series started either.

The issue for me is that he should probably have gone for this change in the Second Test. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but England weren't crash hot in the first game and didn't create a try for an outside back in that game either. If he had made whatever change he makes, he's still have another card up his sleeve for the third test - either bringing in Gale or reverting back to the halfbacks from the first game.

Drop Bateman, Williams, & Burgess.....that will help us.

Sad to see these changes as it indicates there will be no change in tactics from our terrible coach, although strangely the 17 you would expect to see on Saturday does fit the game plan (that hasn't worked in either game so far) a little better.

Joseph Burgess has done nothing wrong that would justify his being dropped. He is the most distinguished rookie in the game. He must be retained!

Smith will swap with Williams and Mcilvary in for Burgess.

I'm going for Smith for Williams as the only change

I am at a complete loss to understand what Smith adds to the team. It wouldn't surprise me if he partnered Smith with Williams. The term 'organiser' is invariably reserved for those with limited abilities; ironically Deacon was also defended for those mystical abilities, but at least he was an excellent kicker. He creates nothing, he is too much of a lard ass to support breaks, his kicking is mediocre. Brough, McGuire, Sneyd, Sinfield, Gale, Williams, Ratchford put him to shame in virtually every stat - tries, assists, missed tackles, tackle busts, metres made, average gain, clean breaks, missed goals.

I don't actually think Smith is a poor player, he isn't, and probably justified his place last year.However, this year he has been off the pace and his GF performance was woeful, where he was outshone by McGuire.There are clearly better options this time. And to ask an off form player who hasn't played for over a month to come in and change the teams fortunes in a 3rd test is clutching at straws imo.