Has he explained his bench decisions yet? I am stunned we would play a 15 man game against a brutal NZ team.

ONE performance!! 70k at Wembley in front a
Home World Cup semi final against the word champions,
If we didn't come out firing then there's something wrong.

If I'm a sulking bulls fan why would I praise him for some of the other things he's done. My post is well balanced with pros and cons of why IMO he should go. You revert to petty insults which says everything.

If Mcnamara was a good enough coach we would have won yesterday. Only using 16 players in a game like that, one of them for 10 mins, difference between winning and losing.

We will never beat Australia/New Zealand with attitudes like yours. Those two would be looking at the hundreds of things we could have done better in that game to win.

I'll give you an example of attitudes. Charnley (who i thinks a great player) & Slater. Slater is a much better player than Chanley, yet in the opening game Charnley casually jogs back for a kick. Puts a foot out, OZ score we lose. Slater sprints for his like his life depends on it. The Aussie coaches will have drilled those sorts of plays into him, those little percent plays that make all the difference at this level. They don't just praise his stunning attack, they look at making him even better. Charnley again scored 30+ tries. Excellent wing play. But if I'd have said he needs to work on the speed he runs back for the ball I'd have been accused of knit picking, jealous bulls fan etc All about attitudes, Australia aren't super human, they're the best as they work on ALL the little things that we barely notice.

"His time has been a success" is pushing it a bit. The squad is manged much more professionally than in the past (something you would expect to happen moving the role to a FT position) but ATEOTD we are expected to beat any team apart from NZ and Australia, so in my eyes a measure of success is how the England team has performed under McNamara against those 2 nations, and it doesn't read well, something like 1 win in 7 games (off the top of my head)? Add to that 2 defeats by the Exiles also. Time to freshen things up IMO, 3 and half years with limited success is more than enough time to decide that someone else should take over. I don't think one outstanding performance in defeat to NZ is enough to justify keeping him on.

I think we should extend his contract on a rolling 12-month basis. This is what happens with Australia.

He deserves a crack at Australia and NZ in the 4N next year. This team will be pretty much the same and the experimentation is now pretty much over. If England show continued momentum then he is the right man for the WC in 2017. If not, we still have 3 years to bed a new option in.

The last 3 years was for experimentation. He has has had 3 years to work out his best team, and still seems fairly clueless about what to do with his main pivots at halfback and hooker.

Roby, Burrow, McIllorum and Sinfield have all had a go at hooker in different combinations and rotations over the 5 games. Had we actually won on Saturday I don't believe that McNamara knows who he would play there in the final. He probably wouldn't play Burrow, so back to McIllorum starting and Roby on the bench again.

The Chase/Widdop debate has been done to death, but Saturday finally proved that McNamara's use of Chase for the past 3 years has been a waste of time and effort, and a wasted opportunity for Widdop to get properly embedded in the team.

To be fair Widdop was injured last year at international time and the year before Chase had just won MOS

You are looking at it too black and white, Widdop was fantastic on Saturday that doesn't automatically mean he should have been first choice in 2011 and 2012 he was injured.

I would certainly keep banana cake for the next year.
Make a decision on next years results and performances.

Fwiw is like both McNamara and Sinfield to give it one more crack at the 4N

The point is that McNamara didn't know, until it was too late, that Widdop was a better choice than Chase. He shouldn't be using the World Cup semi final to experiment.

Even he didn't know before the start of the competition, we had games against Ireland, Fiji and France to experiment in.

Same with going with Roby and Burrow in the semi final; which was the only combination of the potential hookers that he hadn't used in the previous 5 games.

Tbf that attitude is taught from being 15, not when they reach international level!

The point is he did know, he wanted Chase but it didn't work out so he changed it when it mattered, basically he's damned if he does damned if he doesn't with some people on here.

Widdop had only just come back from a very nasty injury, how do you know how he was fairing after the Uastralia game?

McNamara made a very good and brave decision in changing his halfback before the biggest game of the tournament and for 79 minutes and 40 seconds it worked

Really? He's a very poor loser and would have been talking about the rugby gods going after SBW or something last weekend.

Get rid, if the players respected him then there wouldn't have been the early discipline problems, plus the problems every time a player isn't selected they show their and want to leave. They don't respect him, they think his opinion beneath them and for that reason he can't command any authority.

His selection is baffling, he doesn't rate the current MoS, the same man shortlisted with SBW and GI, the same man who made Scotland a level higher than anyone expected.

Then there's the whole Ferres, fringe player that turns out to be one of our better players.

Losing against Italy, Exiles.

Guy isn't good enough, what would Wayne Bennett have done with the pool of players he had at his disposal?

You criticise him for this, yet the player he picked ahead of him had an outstanding tournament and was close to, if not, MoM in almost all England games.

Surely he should be praised for that decision considering the result of it and the pressure he was under to go the other way?

Respect is a two way thing, the players who went out boozing despite team orders are the ones who deserve no respect, McNamara dealt with those players correctly.

As for bringing up Brough again... No where has McNamara said he doesn't rate Brough in fact it was him that ask Brough to make hself available to England, what McNamara said was he only wanted players that were commited 100% to playing for England, Brough clearly did not fit that criteria.