He is extremely over-hyped by some. Don't think he's as disinterested as some folk reckon, he's just not as good as they've been told he is. That said, I agree he's the best we have. Depressing.

Pretty much agree with that, but I'd drop both centres. It would be a massive ask of young Williams to expect him to come in and put England on the front foot from here; I expect Bennett will keep faith with Widdop and Gale. I'd liked to have more of Cooper and less of the Burgess twins.

Gale is not an international standard scrum half, Lomax is not an international standard fullback missing that tackle that led to their try.

Also Daryl Clark should have been brought on in the 1st half when the England forwards were on top to run from dummy half quick PTBs.

Lack of composure and game management with Johnson a different class to anyone else on the field was the difference....as others have said little change even with Wayne Bennett as the coach.

There is nobody better though in england imo. Yeah lets shove Bateman there that will cause havoc

TBH i hope he does get dropped and retires from international football and concentrates on club rugby if this is gonna be the response when he cleraly did nothing wrong to warrant such singling out.

One point that nobody has mentioned is NZ's kicking behind our right flank. Did they see McGillvray or Watkins as the weakness? As the former cleaned up each time I am wondering whether it was a Watkins they were effectively picking out as the weak link in the English defensive line?

Just a good and well executed tactic by Johnson, and as you say, McGillvary dealt with it well. I'm really pleased for him; he's fully deserved his place in the side, and had a fine game in front of his home support (and about 20000 others! ).

Let's be realistic. It was not as bad as many are making out. I thought Sarginson was poor, other than that we were ok. On reflection an intercept and Lomax makes the tackle and it's a good win. Those are the fine margins of international rugby. We had long spells where we were in top, we just lacked the cutting edge of a Shaun Johnson.

My main criticism was the apparent lack of intensity and aggression. Looking at the Scotland game they had spells where they took it to Australia and rattled them. Other than a short spell in the last 10 mins we didn't take the game to NZ. We need to do that against Australia, if we allow them to stay composed and play the percentages we will loose by a big margin. Our only player who looked to be playing with that sort of aggression was Cooper when he came on, I thought he lifted the team. I said earlier in the thread, particularly in the first half our players didn't look like they wanted to get up and play the ball and were happy to let NZ lye on. Some effort would force the ref into making a decision.

I'd like to see Percival in for Sarginson and Taylor in for George Burgess. I wouldn't change the halves as I like stability in that position to help the players develop an understanding.

As others have said we looked much better with Graham and Hill on. Drop one of the Burgess twins for Taylor, Sam needs to calm down a bit and stick to what he does best, Percival for either centre. Any combination of our halves pretty average at this level. I'd stick with Gale and maybe try Williams against Scotland.

On the positive side, wingers, Hill, Graham, Hodgson all played well.

Typical England/Great Britain for the last 30 years - get themselves in a position to win the game (or at least get a draw), but don't have the bottle or nouse to go on and do it.

Any halfback worth their salt would have taken control in those last 10-15 mins, ordered the troops around and at least slotted over a point.

Widdop can only play to structure - he can't play what's in front of him or deviate from the plan, he's what I call a manufactured half. Gale, just didn't grab the game as a halfback should. Too happy to watch the big boys take over.

Kudos to Widdop (who most already know I really don't rate) for his goal kicking and the bat on - without those plays, we're not close.

To play Devil's advocate, Widdop did play what's in front of him with the cross-field kick that resulted in the chance for Watkins. I'm no fan, but he didn't have his worst game for England today. And I still wouldn't necessarily be opposed to his going to full-back, either.

That's his best position, and one he's very good at! He can defend, he's safe under the bomb and he's a master of the pre-mediated 'ball out the back' - The problem is, we're so short of 6's (as are St George - plus a decent 6 will cost you $1m in the NRL), we've decided that's where he should play..... what this team is crying out for is a Schofield type 6 who, with their head up, can decide to run/pass/kick to equal effect, depending on what's on front of them. Unfortunately we don't produce those type of players anymore.

Exactly! If he was a footballer, he'd be a defensive midfielder, not a No. 10.

Gary Schofield couldn't play under Wayne Bennet (or any NRL coach for that matter), as soon as he tried a chip over the top in his own half he would be sent packing.
Its also worth mentioning that there isn't a 6 in the world at the level Schoey was at in the early 90s. (thurstan is a 7 for his club btw)

I was thinking the same as I watched the game. I even went back further to the 80s to list skillful English no 6s

Myler
Topliss
Woods
Joyner

I've always thought Watkins was a very good centre and one of the few in that team with real pace.he seems to be some fans scapegoat time and again.Lomax and Sargjnson on were under par yesterday imo and Gale and Widdop did nowhere near enough with the good possession and time the forwards made for them and it was groundhog day .Watkins And Mcgilvarry were solid and Hall took his one chance but I feel if that had been a centre in class of Moon he would have been put in 2 or 3 times.last 3 games of rugby league iv been to I've left sick as a chip and with decent generals in middle feel would have won comfortably.