a few years ago, us Saints fans couldnt understand why Mick Higham was constantly overlooked for international selection despite performing well in a fantastic club team.

Fact is, some players look good in great teams despite not actually being that great themselves.

McNamara seems to be putting into place (either him or he is part of the strategy) a lot of the elements that have been sadly lacking in Great Britain/England teams over the years – namely a talent development squad in form of the Knights and regular squad get sessions throughout the season. We also have the Exiles concept which, if it works out, will provide the England team with that stern mid season work out that that the Aussies and NZ have in the SOO and ANZAC test. This is all very good and hugely positive for the future

Similarly, his coaching seems to be OK – in the last 4 Nations I felt that England played much more to a game plan than I have seen in recent years with some well structured plays

Unfortunately, this seems counter balanced by a poor selection policy – I agree that the likes of Peacock should be replaced by some of the more up and coming forwards (every time I have seen Hill this year he has been great – mobile and strong just like a Peacock of old) and while JJB, Wilkin etc are good SL forward they don’t have the ability or physical presence to trouble the top two sides

I would be happy for McNamara to stay in the England setup – maybe as manager and have a head coach to work alongside him as I think this would play more to his strengths

That is true, but I don't think it applies to Andy Lynch. When playing for Bradford he was always one of our best players, always one of the best forwards going by the stats year on year, and he's carried that on to his Hull career.

No, because he will be applying for the Leeds job

Excellent post

The other problem is, when you do the match-ups one on one quite often England look OK in a number of positions - e.g. prop when Moreley and Peacock were a bit younger looked OK. However, in the really vital positions of halfback we've been laughably far behind. Add to that the fact that our much vaunted forwards simply don't play anywhere near as well as a unit as the Aussies (dummy runs, intelligent defence etc), and that goes a long way to explaining why we can't get near to Aus when it counts.

The plus signs for me are the emergence of some threequarters with size and speed (its not just because I'm a Leeds fan that I want to see Watkins get over his injuries and get into some form), Tomkins at the back and some NRL experience in the pack.

The downsides are still a lack of halfbacks, and the fact that some of our best forwards of recent years are shot.

Bottom line is, even if everyone is fit and in the best form of their lives, I wouldn't bet on England getting close to Australia in a 'must win' game. We simply don't have the players.

the future halfbacks are coming through but they are not ready yet

gaz o'brien
richie myler
stefan ratchford
johnny lomax
gaskell
stevie ward

I agree McNamara isnt the best man for the job, however not even Wayne Bennett could make the current england side whoever is picked compete with Australia!!

more often than not we beat NZ over here and compete with australia for an hour before they run away with it and over in aus/nz we get thrashed by australia and compete with nz for an hour before they ease ahead. that has happened under numerous coaches and has continued with mcnamara

He's been coming through for a while now. At the moment I don't think he's good enough for England - not that I don't think he's a dangerous player. Still has youth on his side but hasn't developed as quickly as the likes of Tomkins and Lomax.

For me, McNamara should go...Wigan are by far the form team of SL and look to be a level above everybody else and at the moment the other 13 teams look like also rans, yet Wigan players are outnumbered by Leeds players who have been performing way below their best and aren't currently in the Top 8 of SL - it is a joke!!

The difference in this case however is that Wigan are the best team in the league because of the performances of people like McIlorum, not despite him. This year his distribution is superb, seems to pick the right pass every time and makes a daft amount of tackles. That isn't because "he's behind a good pack". He's just playing very well.

Posted this on the Saints board during a discussion about us producing more better quality players now that we were ten years ago.

This is the team which lost 64-10 in Australia.

Radlinski (Wigan);
Johnson (Wigan),
Wellens (St Helens),
Senior (Leeds),
Pratt (Leeds);
Sculthorpe (St Helens),
Sheridan (Leeds);
O'Connor (Wigan),
Cunningham (St Helens),
McDermott (Leeds),
Peacock (Bradford),
Fielden (Bradford),
Farrell (Wigan, capt).

Subs:
Gleeson (St Helens),
Newton (Wigan),
Joynt (St Helens),
Sinfield (Leeds).

Of that backline I estimate one (Senior) would start at international level now. I haven't included Sculthorpe in that because he was a loose forward but the fact that we couldn't produce even one stand off to fill that spot says a lot about the increasing success we're having. It may not be enough to stop Australia but it's doing better now that it was before.

Agreed, but on the flip side the forwards and the bench is better than the current squad

I disagree. The forwards are similar but I think our back rowers have more impact and are more mobile now than they were then. Farrell was undoubtedly a great player but O'loughlin is becoming an increasing good loose. And I think we could put out a better bench than what we had there for sure.