But surely that's a decision that comes unde the heading 'one he got wrong', given he has seen fit to correct it and has played Tomkins ever since? In which case, wasn't the criticism justified?

Don't come on here with your well-reasoned argument - it won't cut much ice, more's the pity.

Well again, to be fair, up to that point his performances as coach in both the World Cup and up to last weeks game in this competition (remember we lost to the Aussies and played poorly against France) suggested this was the case. Even now, we have only had one good win in this comp. Perhaps if we win the tournament, there would be an argument to say he's proved his critics wrong... but after 1 win? Personally I like the way he seems to be addressing the problems as they come up (ineffectual half back pairing and the shocking right side defense for example) but I think it's too early to say he's 'proven' himself as an International coach after just one complete performance.

Is calling Tony Smith a disgrace to the game because he didnt select Tomkins for one game justified criticism?

I think not.

I think that criticism was, not for leaving Tomkins out, but the manner in which it was done. A coach, more so an International one who is given the charge of (in this case) young players from other clubs, should hold as paramount the well being of those players. To 'rubbish' a young players achievements in the way he did in order to justify his decision to drop him was in my, and many other people's opinion, a dereliction of his duty as England coach. For that reason I feel the criticism was justified. You, of course, may feel differently (although if you do, I suggest you would hold a different view if the player in question was from your club and the coach, say, Brian Noble). Whether you agree or not however, the one thing you can't claim is that having that viewpoint is 'wrong'.

Why 1 win?

I thought we beat France and New Zealand which is 2 wins on my calculator.

Are you using Maurice's old one?

Ok. After 1 good win.

Tomkins was always going to play against the Aussies most people knew that (apart a few who decided sulk about the France game all week) Myler scored two tries in the game some Wigan fans were sure we would act the way they had if he didnt make the Aussie game we didn't, for me Wigan fans took what TS said to heart because hes your great hope for the future its a view I doubt they would have and be so offended by if he didnt play for your team.

Also swept the Kiwis a few years back...I take it you haven't watched the game for long.

why did he get it wrong, game changed on mylers tries in 2nd half. he didnt miss a tackle so were did he have a bad game and can you say for certain he wouldnt have improved as the competition went on. for all you know he could have had good games against the aussies and kiwis.

Beats one of the worst Kiwi touring sides ever and then follows it with the most abject WC campaign of all time. It all depends on your perspective really doesn't it?

FWIW I don't agee with the 'good club coach, crap international coach' tag. What I'm saying is, at the time he was getting criticism, it was a viewpoint that had some merit based on his record to that date.

Please explain how "most people knew" that Tomkins was "always going to play against the Aussies". Not only was it definitely not Smith's avowed intention but do you honestly believe that, had the Maguire/Myler ripped it up, that he would have broken that partnership up? I think that is revisionist opinion of the most one-eyed kind! Given that it was his preferred combination (he even said that the reason he played Myler was that we "needed someone to move this big ship around" and didn't think Tomkins, as more of a broken field runner was the man to do this) it's only those that think he can do no wrong that would even suggest this! Point me to one actual piece of evidence that this was the case (as opposed to someone just saying it because it suits their argument).

As for the 2nd part of the post; of course that's the case. I already pointed this out in the last post with the your player/Brian Noble scenario. That doesn't make it wrong though! I also think you're missing the point that the reason you're defending Smith in this instance is because he's your club coach! Faint whiff of hypocrisy there, don't you think?