I agree it's time for new blood. McNamara has taken this team as far as he can take it. I'd say there are three areas where he has to carry the can for our defeats.

Selection

Of course nobody ever agrees with every selection decision, but there's an element about McNamara of "defaulting" to picking players on reputation (or competition), rather than picking on form or ability, I think. The selection of Widdop seemed based largely on the fact that he's playing in the NRL. The selection of Joel Tomkins seemed based on the fact that he was good before he went to RU. The non-selection of Hardaker especially, but also Charnley over Burgess, and Whitehead in the first two games, suggested a coach who was unsighted about the form of UK-based players. That's understandable for a man whose job is in Australia, but until we have ALL our best players in the NRL, we need a coach who is able to select the best players on form, not the best players on reputation, or the best players in the NRL.

Tactics

We've seen flashes of what England can do in this tournament when they actually throw the ball around. But most of the time on the field, the team has not played that way, preferring an ultra-conservative approach of five drives and a not-necessarily-very-good kick. Last week one could argue we allowed Australia back into the game by abandoning the expansive style we had played in the first half for a safety-first approach in the second. There was an element of that today as well. We looked much better when we actually moved the ball. However, I fear McNamara is a part of the generation of coaches who developed the percentages mentality of possession and conservatism, and expansive play does not come naturally to him. Either he coached the players not to throw the ball around too much, and they followed his instructions, or he was trying to get them to play more rugby, but they didn't. In both cases, the coach is culpable.

Ruthlessness

International coaches have to be ruthless, because you don't have a full league season to experiment and wait for someone's form or performance to improve. I think McNamara is ruthless off the field, and that's fine. But on the field he isn't. There were performances by certain England players which were simply not good enough, and should have resulted in changes. Obviously there are matters of opinion here, but Watkins simply did not do enough in his three games to justify his place. Widdop certainly didn't offer any significant threat from half-back to justify his spot, and while I think Sam Tomkins is a fantastic player normally, his form in this tournament has not been as good as Hardaker's form this year. You could make a similar case for Charnley needing to be dropped for Burgess after his first two anonymous games.



The team's performances were good. They were competitive. But I felt that with 15 minutes to go today, with New Zealand rocking, England looked like, more than anything, they lacked self-belief. There were several scrums where we should have been running to stop the clock, but we hung around. There were times when we gave George or Tom Burgess the ball on the fourth tackle to run a dead-ball hit-up, when we desperately needed to spread the ball. There was an atrocious kicking game from Smith which needed a tactics change from the coach. None of these things happened. At various points, it looked like the plan was simply to pass the ball to Sam Tomkins and hope he'd somehow perform a miracle. We looked like a team who believed they were going to lose, not a team who were ruthlessly going to win. Exactly the same as last week, when rather than hammer home our advantage over the Aussies, we stood back and expected to lose with fearful, expectant play.

Coaching is a harsh game, but while we can't change the entire team (and wouldn't want to - there are some very good players in there ), we clearly DO need a change if we are to get past what is now almost more a mental that physical obstacle in order to start winning those tight games, rather than inevitably losing them.

It matters because Brough and his side then went on got beat when it actually mattered didn't they.
Just like every other game when it actually mattered.

Compare Broughs attitude with Widdops. Widdop was happy to play a bit part and play ,'second fiddle' until his time came, Brough on the other hand wanted it his way or not at all, that to me suggest a Ayer that hasn't got the teams interest at heart, and the results of his teams proves that.

People go on about team selection but
1) no one wanted Sarginson but he turned out to be very good
2) lots said drop Hodgeson but Clarke wasn't as effective when he did
3) No one wanted Joel Tomkins and said it was rediculous Whitehead wasn't in but Whitehead was no better today

He can only play what he has. I'm sure he'd prefer Burgess not to go to RU, or Hock to have a brain or Hardaker to be more professional or Roby not to be injured or O'Loughlin to be fully fit for just one game.........but unfortunately, he isn't in control of that.
He went with what he had and I thought we played entertaining rugby and matched it with the big 2. Unfortunately we just missed twice.

BUT I've seen years worth of getting smashed by the big two and being soft and disorganised in defence. He has solved that issue.

I'd keep him.

Whitehead hasn't played for about a month and a half, McNamaras mistake was picking J Tomkins 3 weeks ago when he should have had Whithead in the team to give him some game time. McNamaras second mistake was playing Whithead today when he is out of match fitness, he'd have been better off picking Westerman who at least played 3 weeks ago.

That's the key point, in my view. By the time Whitehead gets a run out, it's as sub half-way through a vital game when he hasn't played for over a month. And while Hardaker may be a daft lad, I've not seen any suggestion that he's been unprofessional on this tour. I think his exclusion is the biggest criticism of McNamara's judgement in my view. From an opposing fan's view, Hardaker was the single player at another club who caused the greatest rise in blood pressure when he got the ball. In the second half today when the defensive lines were getting straggly, Hardaker's running would have been devastating. Tomkins just didn't offer the same threat from fullback, and only someone who was defaulting to a "NRL over SL" position couldn't see that. If Tomkins had to be included for his undoubted talent, then the place to include him was either off the bench, or in the halves to inject some unpredictability into our rather pedestrian attack.

By the way, I was not one of those who criticised Sarginson's inclusion : he's a very good player, and has established himself as the first choice England centre in this competition. It's Watkins who should be looking over his shoulder after some seriously lacklustre performances.

Yes he's entirely to blame for not selecting a player that has chosen to play for Scotland.

In fact worse than that - because Brough islets be honest totally overrated hence he doesn't play for one of the big clubs - it's his fault why didn't he pick Daley Cherry Evans? He should have picked him he's actually good and he chose to play for another country as well.

Brough was forced out of the England camp, you can ignore what's obvious all you like!

when he was first put in charge i thought it was a joke and he must have been the cheapest option, but we should be thanking him for making England RL respectable again. I have read a comment on a forum saying "when did England players stop playing like England players" also the pundits in Australia are taking us a lot more serious.

But if i agree we may need somebody to take us to the next level but i wouldn't hire somebody new just for the sake of it, i also won't slate him on the way out.

He wasn't picked and took his bat and ball home.

He's also behind te half backs picked anway. Played great against Wales and Ireland but it's not running with the big dogs is it.

His form hasn't been great this season from what I've seen either.

You beleive that if you want, ignorance is bliss I suppose!

Not going over old ground but Brough was (and still is INHO) England's best half back. He was best player in league in 2013 and England would have been better with him in the side. He won Albert Goldthorpe medal so can't have been that bad.

Anyway back on topic.

While we have improved as a side, a lot of that is due to having far superior players to what we have previously had. Yes we have improved but we have also missed some opportunities as well. First game in WC against a team who hadn't played for two month. Lost.

Semi final in which we were in a winning position. McNamara kept a tired prop and had an unused sub. Lost.

Weak Australia team. Lost.

we NEED to move on.

Your comment smacks of the problems that beset International RL in this country.

If you dont play for a big club you should not get picked therefore the pool of England players only comes from
Wigan leeds Wire and Saints.

They are the only big clubs who have won anything of note over the last five years.

Conversley if you play for a big club you must be good so you should get in.

That is why we had Charnely and Tomkins playing because they play for Wigan so they must be good.

If you play in the NRL you must be good hence Widdop.

Too often we pick players who have looked good in good teams against poor opposition.

You need to look at players who can work together.

My comment about Brough was not about now.

FWIW he is probably on the wane and is not the future for England RL He should have been picked a couple of years ago when he was at his peak.

Every single tournament McNamara has picked wrong players.

He has been tactically naaive in games.

For those who say we are getting closer to Australia and NZ that is because we have got players who are getting us closer to them.

A couple of years ago we had Peacock and Graham but not the quality in depth we have now in respect of props etc.

The players that are available now are good enough to give any team a good game.

It is up to the coach to get that extra 10 % that gets the team over the winning line.
McNamara cannot do it.

I was against McNamara from the begining. His record at Bradford was enough, His record at England is dire.

Despite being full time and basing himself in Australia we are not really any better.

Many players pick themselves for internationals. The coach picks the others and works out how to use them it is this bit where we are going wrong.
NZ threw more offloads in this game than England have in the tournament yet we have probably an equal if not better front 4 than any other team.

That is tactics.

Just because we lost a couple of games by close scores is no indication we are getting better.

Despite the defeats that's the best England have played in a tournament down under. A fair video ref decision and a thinner post and we would be undefeated. Mcnamara to stay.

Only just started? He has been in the job four and a half years! And in that time managed just one win in seven against The Aussies and Kiwis. Every coach has a shelf life and he has reached his with this England side i'm afraid.