Ignoring the controversy for a moment, I think there's a few obvious things that must change in order to give us a chance next week and indeed going forward.

Firstly, there is not enough strike in our backline to score enough points to win big games, certainly not by the amount we need against NZ. Matty Smith is an ordinary scrum half at this level, defenders don't even bother committing to him as they know he offers no threat at all. The solution to this would be bringing Hardaker in at full back with Tomkins and Widdop operating out of 6 and 7 respectively. Hardaker is also much better defensively than Tomkins and more than likely would have taken Jennings and prevented their first try.

Joel Tomkins is a passenger at the moment. His defensive channel was exposed time and time again. Coincidentally it was generally between him and Smith that we were exposed so taking them both out could sure this up. Elliot Whitehead to replace him at second row.

Josh Charnley was poor today as he has been most times I've seen him at this level. I'd be tempted to give Joe Burgess a go, see what the kid can do. However, the timing may not be right so I'd be fine with either playing.

Brett Ferres offers nothing either, I'd replace him with either Mike Cooper as an extra big guy to try and dominate NZ's forwards or bring in Joe Westerman to play off the bench. Preferably Cooper for me.

Josh Hodgson isn't an international standard hooker. Unfortunately with only 2 hookers in the squad and Clarks impact off the bench so valuable we are stuck with him starting, unless you want to make a radical play and bring Ratchford in at hooker. I don't see that happening though.

Liam Farrell's size is often questioned but there's been nothing shown in this four nations to warrant that criticism.

I had initial reservation about Sarginson but he played very well and keeps his shirt.

In summary, I'd go:

1. Zak Hardaker
2. Josh Charnely / Joe Burgess
3. Kallum Watkins
4. Dan Sarginson
5. Ryan Hall

6. Sam Tomkins
7. Gareth Widdop

8. George Burgess
9. Josh Hodgson
10. James Graham
11. Liam Farrell
12. Elliot Whitehead
12. Sean O'Loughlin

14. Daryl Clark
15. Tom Burgess
16. Chris Hill
17. Mike Cooper

I'm slightly concerned that would leave us without a specialist long kicking game but between the players out there I think they could do a good enough job of it, playing off the back of a big forward pack.

That's a fair argument, and justifiable. Where I'd differ is that I think Ferres has more to offer, but is being used badly at present out of his normal channel. Farrell looked fine in the first half today, but the second half I didn't think he offered enough. Joel Tomkins' inclusion remains a mystery to me, and certainly Whitehead must be wondering why he's being kept out of the team by Tomkins.

I absolutely agree that Hardaker needs to be brought in, and the obvious place to do that is at fullback where he was almost unmanageable for Leeds this year. However, Hardaker has also played centre, and it's in the centre with Watkins where I think we currently have our closest thing to another passenger. Sarginson certainly did enough to keep the shirt, so I wouldn't be unhappy if Hardaker replaced Watkins in a one for one swap. I also agree with a Burgess for Charnley swap. Burgess looked scary for me when playing against Wigan, whereas Charnley looks out of form.

Failing that, do we move Tomkins to the halves ? If so, I would put him there instead of Widdop rather than Smith. Smith may not be fast or tricky, but he is an organiser, and you could see his influence on the shape of the team. I'd keep him just for that. Widdop, on the other hand, has disappointed me in these two matches. He just doesn't seem to do a lot with the position he has. Our forwards do get on top and make many yards, so you'd expect a top stand-off to be exploiting that, but Widdop seems far too much of a catch-and-pass player, rather than taking the line on himself. Tomkins, given the same space and a back-pedalling defence, could make hay at second receiver. Widdop can sit on the bench to be used as and where gaps appear, as he can fill in anywhere in the back 7.

Hodgson offers nothing. If Clarke plays, he needs to either do the full 80, or - wildcard - have Ratchford as his interchange. I'm a huge fan of Ratchford, who offers some creativity we currently lack.

So I think I'd go :

1. Hardaker
2. Hall
3. Watkins
4. Sarginson
5. Burgess (J)
6. Tomkins (S)
7. Smith
8. Hill
9. Clark
10. Graham
11. Whitehead
12. Ferres
13 O'Loughlin

14. Burgess (G)
15. Burgess (T)
16. Ratchford
17. Widdop

I can see sense in all of that and certainly wouldn't argue with any of it. One thing though, would having Widdop AND Ratchford on our bench not leave us too light up against a big Kiwi pack.

A bench of Lewis Brown , Suaia Matagi, Martin Taupau, Tohi Harris would be considerably heavier and could exploit us down the middle once our forwards start to tire.

I'm feeling pretty positive.

We played australia, in australia, in a must win game for australia, with australian officials and took them the distance. When was the last time england did that against australia in a must win game? Over the last generation england have struggled to compete down under and even on home soil have been soundly beaten/outplayed or had the match run away from them at some time in any must win game. At no point did england look in any danger of being well beaten or have the match run away from them. If australia lost this game they would have been out of the tournament, and they were hanging on at the end.

England definitly have the beating of australia, right here right now. If they make the final they might just finally do it.

We showed today we can beat them. Carry on. More of the same. Have some more balls whien it comes to the games administration. Stop getting pushed around by the Aussie administrators. The players did their bit.

The most frustrating thing about today was that we had done enough to give the Aussie confidence a huge dent. That same sense of belief over the past 20 years that has always given them the edge in games that matter. It could have vanished today.

We did enough to kick them out Of a major comp in their own back yard, played to their rules with their own ref.

Tomorrows papers will show a win though. They get to keep their sense of belief.


Such a shame for the future of international RL.

Totally disagree, need to increase player pool in UK and get rid of Aussie journey men from our game, this has been a problem for over 20 years. We need more london accents in our team as well, like sarginson and Los wasn't far off being selected either. people say london has been a failure but the talent and player pool is massive down there, need to bring them through.
Ryan hall never played in NRL but proved against yesterday why is rightly called the WBW we simply need more players playing at the top level.

Cheat

Publically state we will never play an International match without a neutral ref ever again, and if that means the Australians ' exempt ' themselves from that part of the sport, then so be it

I didn't make it clear in my post, but I was actually thinking about the medium to long term rather than the team for the next game...apologies for that

Which other International Sport doesnt now have neutral refs?

We weren't a million miles away today. We need keep the intensity up for the full 80 minutes and improve our attacking kicking game. Did we get any repeat sets all game?

Considering every time we kicked, the kicker got put on the floor after kicking, improving that might be a problem, but not once penalised ,make of that what you will?

I think if all our best players were in the NRL we'd win. Since NZ have had their players in they have come on. Ditto Samoa. Australia are suffering because the NRL attracts quality players and sadly for Australia most of the best are not Aussies.