I feel part time for Wane would hinder Wigan. The Wigan team all respect and seem to want to play their very best, not just for the team, but for Wane. Would that still be the case if Roby, Watkins, Briscoe, Ferres were chosen to start for England over Mickey, Goulding, Charnley, Faz? Would they not secretly hold a distaste for Wane because of that, should it happen?

I think Wane does one or the other full time.

The England job, now that the World Cup is out of the way, is only part-time. He only has to pick the team which as he watches as much Super League as anyone else he can do quite easily. The likes of Burgess, Graham and Tomkins don't need to be watched - he can get a Premier Sports subscription for that!

The next international isn't until after the next Super League season finishes. Wigan have no games from October, hopefully after the GF until February.

He could use a tournament down under as a learning experience to improve as a coach with Wigan benefitting.

However personally, if I were him I'd leave it. If Wigan don't win anything next season there will be loads of pressure on him from Wigan fans as well as the fans of all other clubs. He will be accused of favouring Wigan players over theirs and all sorts. Plus, I don't think that England are anywhere near beating Australia, especially away from home.

But I do think his ego will win out and he'll fancy a go at it.

Given emphasis should be centred on a 4 year cycle (ie the world cup), the position must have a committed RFL and coach that will see out the period come what may.

If we assume that SW will be down-under in a couple of years (at least) where does that leave any England (or please, a GB team) in the run-up to the WC?

I'd prefer him to be concentrating on us with maybe a 2 year, part-time contract with the national team whilst a full-time coach with a full team of elves is put in place for a proper tilt at the Aussies.

???

As none of the Irish, Welsh or Scottish players (Brough would have played for England had he been picked) are good enough to get in the England team - why deny 50+ players the chance to play international rugby league? Whether you call it England or Great Britain it's still the same players.

Given the current standards, yes. But isn't it the assumption that bringing the other 3 into one big group would help drive up standards? Also RL in Scotland, Wales & Ireland can never hope to achieve the recognition or cash that even England get (which I know is p.poor before anyone starts).
Strength in numbers & all that....

I disagree. I thought we played to our absolute potential in the NZ game. We were never in with a realistic chance of winning the comp.

Whilst we were never realistically going to win it, we should have got to the final. Our best chance was catching the Aussies cold in the first game, thus avoiding NZ in the semi. McNamara blew it. He didn't pick his best team in the first game, preferring to score pathetic points by leaving out Graham & MMc and getting rid of Hock altogether. We were in with a chance until he had to make substitutions and the bench wasn't strong enough. Also he preferred Chase to Widdop when everyone with eyes could see that Chase was hopeless.

That said we 'd have lost to Australia in the final, but, I think we'd have made a better game of it.

I fail to see how Britain would be any stronger than England. Mind you they'd have a nicer kit.

:39r8ebcs
maybe not, but there'd be a wider pool (& just think how many dummies would have been spit out if it could ever have been a GB & Ireland squad with Pat playing for it

).

Fantasy teams aside - whilst I don't rate McN as a coach/manager (going to Yawnion will be our gain IMO), I don't put the "not getting to the final" all on him. The team played their socks off against NZ & were simply unlucky at the end (you've got to play for 80 minutes after all) & the rather lacklustre displays prior to that looked a lot like complacency (except Cardiff, where they allowed the Aussies to stop them playing).

I don't think anyone could have got through the Aus defence at O/T. I was on their 20yd line (2nd half) & the wall they put up was jaw-dropping in its effectiveness. Nothing the Kiwis did was ever going to get through it & that's what England must learn to do if we're ever going to compete (I hope SW was taking notes too).

Additionally, the whole Hock thing was poorly managed (he shouldn't have been in the squad in the first place), McN has no media nous & the RFL did him no favours - they simply allowed the wolves to circle.

I did a media relations course for work 2 or 3 years ago & the 10 things not to do)

^This.

McNamara made bad decisions from the beginning. I think with the right decisions throughout the tournament, we'd have made the final. And had we played NZ in the final, avoiding Australia; or had we faced a battered Australia in the final, who knows. We were clear 3rd favourites regardless of who was in charge. But McNamara was not the right man for the job, in my opinion.

Been appointed assistant coach at the Roosters full story in the Sydney Morning Herald.