Of course, in the interests of a balanced assessment, you have to look at both sides and provide relative comparisons.

Been England coach is the easiest job in the world there's only 2 teams that can beat and as long as you trade wins with one of them and beat the other one the odd time your laughing

given macnamara the benefit of the doubt since hes been in charge and seen improvement since hes been in charge

but the way we are playing is awful to watch, think we could do play alot better than we do with tactics

too boring, the first 2 tests certainly were

he did win the series though so you could say he deserves another contract, for me id like to see change for the style of rugby we play to improve

It didnt really matter in comparison to a Four Nations/World Cup competition win though...we won the same trophy back in 2007 and since then NZ have gone on to win a World Cup & 4 Nations and we havent got anywhere near them or Australia since. Yes it is nice to win a series, but in the bigger picture it doesnt rank with the other tournaments we play in

If McNamara stays on for the next World Cup it will be a travesty. Even with the quality of players at his disposal his team still spouts out dire, bland rugby. The poor 2013 World Cup should've been the end as his reign.

But because we sneaked a 2-1 series against only a second string NZ team, people want to see him in the job.

People talking about the record prior to Macnamara are ignoring the quality he has been able to choose from. Especially in the backs which has always been a problem area. We also have more players playing in the NRL now than I can ever remember. So yeah, I think with the right coach we could and should be playing a lot better.

McNamara has to go he is approved poor coach, we have improved in spite of him, the real test is 4 nations next year which under him I am convinced we will fall short.

Mcdermot and Powell dual head coaches for me.

Isn't McDermott the USA coach?

McDermott and Powell is a good shout.

Good god no. I'm not averse to either as England coach but you can't have dual head coaches.

Think Highlander. There can be only one.

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.