I've checked my recording several times and it didn't look wide to me.

I'm not about to engage in wishful thinking either.

Given the ingrained culture of the RL demographic for screaming boooooo, offside, gerrem onside (but not our lads obviously), cheats, etc, if there was any legitimate evidence that Johnson's drop goal was wide, we'd already have a thread on here set to rival Joynt's Voluntary Tackle.

Not seen the footage but I was directly behind the sticks and seemed fine to me along with everyone else around me

My view of the halves for what it's worth (and no, I haven't got my amber and black tinted specs on!). Too much went through Widdop, Gale didn't get his hands on the ball enough. It reminded me a little of when Rangi Chase was put into the England set up (whether he should have or not is not the issue here). He was a maverick half who could spark a team from anywhere with his moments of magic, but when put into the England team was made to play a structure outside of his natural game will nullified him. Very similar to Gale yesterday, he can provide that spark, but seemed to have been told to play to a structure that doesn't suit his game. Did Johnson play to a set structure? No, he was allowed to play whats in front of him. Widdop needs to control the game and Gale needs freedom to take control when he wants and play what he sees at the time to provide that spark, something different. All class halves at times just go and do what they want, thats what sets them apart. A halfback playing to set structures for 80 mins is never going to change a game at international level, and so we may aswell go back to Matty Smiths boring play. I though Gale stood up well in defence though. I would be keeping the halves the same as I think they could compliment each other very well with more game time together. What we do in the centres I have no clue! On a side note, I thought both our wingers played well, with a special mention to McGillvary who I thought was our MOM by a distance.

Never wide while I have hole in my ****. Has Peacock been tweeting again?!

What a load of BS. Aside from Graham and maybe Hodgson, all our NRL players should be dropped for next week IMO. They were poor.

Lomax - Had a solid but not spectacular game, tidied things up at the back and supported well in general play. He never looked threatening and doesn't have the pace or physicality to challenge the players he'll face at this level. His missed tackle was the one glaringly unforgivable mistake he made. Alternatives Ratchford (Shaul)

McGillivery - Played well and looked a threat throughout, easily dealt with a variety of kicks sent his way. Did a mountain of work to help out his middles and took a lot of energy out of the Kiwi defence when carrying the ball. Always seems to find his front and get a reasonably quick play the ball. Alternative not needed

Watkins - On form over the last 2 years and based on performances in big games he should never have been selected. Offers no threat whatsoever and there is no sign of the much vaunted athleticism and evasion that we hoped he'd bring to the international backline. Easily dealt with by the defence and failed to do the basic things when McGillivery laid on a catch and fall over the line opportunity. Alternative Percival

Sarginson - Honest, hard working and lots of endeavour but does not have any skills specific to centre play and has no idea how to create space and deliver a killing pass for his winger. Had a superb opportunity to put Hall in for an early try but failed to recognise it and died with the ball. Alternative Atkins if he were in the squad

Hall - Another who did not deserve a call up but at least justified the faith in him at this level. Worked hard coming out of yardage and made good metres against New Zealand's middles. Took his try well. Alternative not needed

Widdop - Toiled hard throughout but failed to organise England's attacking game which resulted in a pretty narrow forward based game. He wasn't helped by delayed delivery from Hodgeson and a no show performance from Gale. His kicking game was poor, particularly close to the NZ try line and his decision to pass instead of attacking the space inside Johnson was amateurish. Alternative Brown or Williams

Gale - Deserved a chance but Just failed to make the step up. When he did get involved he was too lateral and played too far from the defensive line, never fixed a defender and allowing NZ to just slide and pick off his runners with ease. Alternative Williams

Graham - Industrious and hard working, made a lot of carries and tackles which is what the job description says he should do. However, there was little evidence of the ball playing ability which normally sets him apart this might be down to Bennetts game plan or just a lack of cohesion in the team meaning there was very little push around the ball carrier and therefore few options for interplay within the forwards. Alternative not needed

Hodgeson - Did little wrong but created nothing and never threatened around the ruck. My biggest criticism is his propensity to step out from dummy half and square the 1st marker before passing at almost every play the ball. While this is a good skill to have, sometimes a fast early ball off the ground is required which allows the ball players a bit more time to play. Alternative Clarke (Roby if he was in the squad)

Hill - Had a good game with a mixture of power and good footwork often troubling the Kiwi defensive line. He has a good offload game and while he got a few decent ones away he seemed stifled either by Bennett a lack of support or both. In my opinion he didn't spend enough minutes on the field which isn't his fault. Alternative not needed

Whitehead - Had a strong game and looks every inch an international player. His size, speed and footwork constantly challenged the Kiwis defence and with better attacking shape I'm sure he'd have broken their line a few times. Threw a very astute pass for McGilliverys try and he defended well. Alternative not needed

Bateman - Simply not big enough at this level. There is no doubting his toughness but for his own good we need to stop picking him at international level. He had no impact in either attack or defence and despite his willingness to work we were effectively playing a forward down. He is a good domestic player but not big enough for internationals and not skilled enough to be a choice as a replacement centre. Alternative Farrell S.Burgess

S Burgess - Worked very hard and was prominent throughout without showing us anything of the World Class forward he was before the switch. New Zealand didnt allow him any room but Sam seemed to be caught between running, handling enforcing and being Captain. I'd move him to left side second row and have him concentrate on his running game. Alternative Cooper

Clarke - Played well and looked sharp, his delivery was quick from the ground and helped Gale in particular get his hands on the ball more. Probably lacked a bit of vision when decision making at dummy half as there were a few occasions where his trademark scoot would have had NZ going backwards. Alternative not needed but more minutes required

Cooper - Did well when he came on and at least brought some energy to a one paced forward line up. Never really troubled NZ but put his hand up to carry often and gained quick play the ball through 2nd effort and late footwork. Alternative not needed

G Burgess - As always he was hard to stop and took lots of energy out of the Kiwi defence. He didn't do much wrong when carrying the ball but also failed to do anything damaging. Again the lack of push and support around our forward play allowed the Kiwi defenders to gang tackle and nullify our size. Alternative not needed

T Burgess - Failed to continue where he left off against last years touring Kiwis when he was our best forward. In comparison he looked ponderous and ineffective while his inability to hold onto the ball in collision was eveident as was his poor tackling technique. Alternative Taylor

Bennett - I'm a Wayne Bennett admirer but I thought his whole approach from the moment he got appointed was wrong and betrayed a lack of knowledge and belief in the players available in this country. His game plan, if there was one, was too simplistic, he failed to recognise the right time to bring on Clarke who S hould have been introduced after 20 minutes when we had forced the Kiwis into all out defence for a sustained period.
Having both of the Burgess twins on the bench/field at the same time was a glaringly obvious error and I said so as soon as I saw the team. As soon as they were introduced the Kiwis took advantage of their lack of mobility and took them on with players who have power and footwork in Taumololo and Ta'Pau. The switch in momentum 25 minutes into the game was as much down to this than anything else. He seemed to have stifled any kind of interplay between the forwards which removed much of our attacking threat through a Graham, Hill and S Burgess and also allowed the Kiwis to defend in numbers on each of our ball carriers therefore nullifying another of our assets, size!
Our kicking game was poor and we played too narrow.

The above post by the The Avenger is pretty spot on in my view.

To those saying there is too much negativity, one point in it, etc. - we should have won this game comfortably. I fear the worst against Australia unless some we have more fire in the belly. I think this Australian side will prove the best we've had here in over a decade and on yesterday's performance we have gone back not forward over the last couple of years. Whoever gets to the final will, I believe, be humiliated by Australia.

I agree, having another NRL standard halfback may have made a difference. Someone able to unlock a tighter defence. I've nothing personal against Gale, but there's a difference between showing a spark against a SL defence and doing the same against an NRL defence. I also don't buy people suggesting Gale was hampered by the structures, he's a halfback if any of the players on the field has the opportunity to interject themselves it's the halfback.

Widdop may be a "Steady Eddie" but he's being "Steady Eddie" week in week out against better defences than the rest of England's backs, when one of the others steps up to the same level then the question can be asked. I'd like to see if Williams can step up, if only that I don't think he could offer less than Gale did.

There is a slo mo video on Facebook that seems to show it did miss. So buy yourself a cork and bung it!

Maybe he's just a victim of being a decent, if flawed, centre who has been gratuitously overhyped? I did wince when someone described him as arguably the world's second best centre during the line up. The best centres will demand the ball, even command it to them, nobody moans that the likes of Lyon and Inglis don't get passed to because they simply find a way to be on the end of that ball.

I think it's just the usual problem with depth perception on camera angles where the ball arcs across an upright.

Even though the shot is from behind the goal and the ball disappears fleetingly behind the upright?

I don't really bother too much these days as they are leagues apart in terms of skill etc I'm thinking more in terms of the Aussies the Kiwi's is done and dusted and the challenge ahead is tougher.
Stark truth is the final will be between the two better sides.

On Watkins inclusion if he had signed for his local club he would never have gotten selected as an International in the first place. Take Scott Taylor he was fit for purpose last year but didn't get selected until he signed for Hull. Who knows maybe Josh Griffin will get his call next year certainly deserves a shot.

Sorry but Hodkinson is not an upgrade on Widdop or Gale imo and is not in the class of Johnston Thurston and Cronk who have the ability to unlock a tight international defence and be a match winner on his own. Austin maybe in time but its clutching at straws. Truth is there are very few in the bracket of the three players mentioned above and unfortunately we just don't have one and haven't for a very long time which is why we fall just short time and again like yesterday.

Only caught the game today and reading this forum beforehand I was expecting a really poor display but as usual on here quite an overreaction. Not saying it was good, but wasn't poor either.

Don't think anybody for England had a bad game, just no one really had a great game. Just a lot of average performances with the key problem being a lack of organisation and direction when we had the ball and as for wholesale changes do people really think that some of the players being mentioned as replacements would've come up with something, because I seriously doubt a scenario where Ryan Atkins and Stefen Ratchford and Scott Taylor are the difference makers against a New Zealand international side.

The two changes I'd make are the ones that were touch and go before that game. Williams in for Gale who didn't really take his chance and also Percival for Sarginson. The latter choice I wanted to see this tournament anyway and although Sarginson had a strong end to the season it was from FB.

The criticism of Watkins is exaggerated but expected. Yes couldn't take in what was a tricky pass to take but didn't really have much to work with after and the ideal chance for him near the end when we were breaking Widdop looped it over him to the less paced Bateman. Not much has been said of the good chance McGillivary didn't take on the 20 mins mark when one on one with his opposite winger 5m out he ran straight at him and didn't go low or to the right or left of him, just tried to run over him and failed to do so but because he managed to squeeze the ball out it went a bit unnoticed.