To be honest I can't believe the players have to be told there's a drinking ban! It shouldn't even be an issue, their supposed to be professionals , why would you dream of going out on the pop the week before the World Cup opener in beyond me! Drink as much as you want at the end of the tournament! X

Hock, Graham, McIllorum and Hardaker - probably one brain cell between them.






and that's under used.

I've put this as a separate point and what they've done is not professional.

But historically there have been players - including Moz - who have done stupid things (like getting caught drunk driving during the Ashes series when Britain were sponsored by 'don't drive drink' campaign).

I raise this just to put another view.

But in this day and age - an even back then - it's simply not on.

We need every advantage we can get to face the Aussies in order to stand any chance of coming close - let alone winning.

I doubt the Aussies are all saints - and maybe there are things that go on behind the scenes with them that are not ''professional'' but the point is they are the team to beat so it doesn't really matter what they do.
We can only look after ourselves.

Were the ground rules clear? Arguably yes

Was the punishment for each of them consistent? All excluded from the first game.
Hock late to rehab - and not sure in what state when he did turn up. Punishment? Maybe harsh, maybe not but he's simply plain stupid. Unfortunately it's his own fault.

He loses out and England lose out.

Challenging the coaches authority could only end up one of 2 ways. Player loses out or coach loses out.

A very astute observation and one that applies to a great number of players many of whom patently do not understand the rules of the game they are making a living at.
The good managers/coaches though when dealing with halfwits treat them as such and establish from the outset who is the boss and what the consequences are if anyone thinks otherwise. How many so called 'top' players were sent packing by Ferguson, Clough and, yes, Tony Smith because they did not fit their bill first and foremost as people and were disruptive. To this end, I cannot understand why McNamara picked some of the squad, particularly Hock, whose history speaks for itself. I also thought the squad lacked a Morley or Peacock to set an example. I know Peacock was not available and Morley has not been at his barnstorming best but the squad does lack that type of mature player who commands respect
I would not question the disciplinary action he took or how he dealt with the media as I think the media are an unscrupulous rabble, but I am afraid it was a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There is also the possibility that these hard cases needed some dutch courage to face the Aussies because they knew they would get second prize. In the event I thought the team that played acquitted themselves quite well

I agree with McNamara's sentiment BUT what he should have done is been straight with the media on why he axed Hock and the reasons other players where dropped.

Don't bother with spin, kill it stone dead, come out and tell the truth and that stops all the conjecture.