Widdop has no excuses. His forwards have eat up the metres and bought him some space but he's failed to use it.

Matty Smith plays a very basic game but it showed Widdop up today.

Opposition fans didn't rate Andy Farrell. I even stood next to opposition fans who spent the whole of each game sneering at the 'massively overrated' Ellery Hanley - until he crossed the whitewash for his fourth or fifth try. To be honest, if you've been a Wigan fan for the last 30 years, you'll long ago have learned not to give a diddly squat what opposition fans say.

Based on what I've seen of him he's only the first choice because he's in the NRL.
He looked poor for the majority of last season as well though, and he was playing behind a pack containing; Graham, Hodgson, Cooper, and Tom Burgess (plus Whithead, and George/Sam Burgess will probably be in the starting pack as well next season), I don't think that's a valid excuse. It seems clear to me that when you actually examine his skill set there isn't much there. No long kicking game, no game management, no passing game, no real running threat. He's a great defender, but you don't pick your halves based solely on their defense. I really don't think he offers more than Gale or Tomkins would in the halves for England behind that very good English pack.

Agreed. Widdop is supposed to be the seasoned NRL pro who plays against these guys every week and is supposed to take the lead, but he was outshone by the rookie Williams in the first game and certainly by Matty Smith's (as Charlie quite rightly says) bread-and-butter kicking game in this one. What he did do is make some good cover tackles in defence, but that the NRL training that's been drummed into him. More is needed from an international half.

People have a real hang up about playing lads out of what is deemed their position. Widdop plays stand off for St George so therefore he should only play there for England but to me he still looks like a full back playing in the halves. Add in Sam Tomkins starting to look more and more like a half playing at fullback and I'd seriously consider a swap. Widdop only moved in to the halves because he couldn't get a game in front of Slater.

Zak Hardaker has defended well but offered no sort of link or threat in attack. I'd consider going 1-Widdop, 6-Tomkins and 7-Smith for next years four nations.

Lockers was deservedly MOS. Graham was average yesterday and For every penalty Lockers concedes Hill does a stupid offload in his own half. All the forwards were good throughout the series. A special mention to Ferres. Three excellent games.

On the negative side was the performance of Watkins. Everyone was banging on about McGilvary, who did well in defence. But really what chances did the winger get in all three games? Watkins didn't give one single pass. Bateman gave Hall more passes yesterday than Watkins gave in all three tests.

I think the whole England game plan was to play thru the middle leaving very little opportunity for esher centre or wingers to shine. I do think mcgilvrey deserved a start and offered more running ball out giving the props a rest than burgess did in previous games.

Watkins by my reckoning butchered two very good chances. He dropped the pass from Lockers when England had space and an overlap and he then passed to the NZ player a few mins later after a good break.

Still it goes back to what I wrote on another thread - one or two games don't make or break a career. Watkins has been very good all season and I'll take the view that over 30/40 games he's been the leagies best centrw and therefore is by definition a top player.

What this has proved is that thankfully we have got some more mileage next season from Lockers, 3 games on the spin in wet conditions and MOS , no injuries , now hopefully bit of a rest then lead us from the front next season , the cream always comes to the top, well done Lockers !

I wouldn't disagree about Widdop, but is he really a better full-back than Hardaker? I'm not convinced. I might be wrong, but my recollection is that he always *was* a half, who was drafted into full-back when Billy Slater got injured. And did pretty well there. Hardaker did do a bit more to try to join in the attack yesterday, but to dismiss him after three very solid defensive displays where he hardly put a foot wrong seems very harsh. I'd be happy for ZH to stay at full-back and any two from three in the halves from Tomkins, Williams, and Smith, depending on tactics/conditions. Widdop doesn't deserve an automatic place; no-one does. Also, Gale deserves a shot too.

Also, I have another theory about the Melbourne Storm.

Playing second fiddle there for too long is bad for your development as a player. Widdop had it for years, now Blake Green is in his shoes. Watch any Storm game and see how many touches Green gets compared to Cronk and Smith. Cronk hogs the ball, and Green gets limited runs, with limited options, generally down the left flank. Go back a couple of years, and it was Widdop it was happening to. Another point is, it's hard to develop a good kicking game when you're teamed up with two of the guys who are thought to be the best kickers in the business. For me, Blake Green's performances have tailed off after a bright start for the Storm, and I don't think it's hard to see why.

Widdop played fullback at reserve grade iirc. The first time I heard of him was when he had a great year in that reserve grade and I think the storm win the grand final.

You're probably right though in that he may not be a better fullback then Hardaker. He certainly isn't defensively but I don't think the team will win things over the next two years unless Hardaker manages to find an extra gear in attack. I remember the stick Rads took playing for GB for just being a defensive fullback but Hardaker has been exactly the same in this series (but doesn't support the play as well). It doesn't feel like you can run with that sort of option at fullback in the modern game but I do think there's more to come from Hardaker.

Some opposition fans do not rate Lockers and don't appreciate how good a player he is and what he brings to any side he plays in
Some opposition fans do not rate Sinfield and don't appreciate how good a player he is and what he brings to any side he plays in

Some fans don't like either simply because they don't play for their club side rather than judging either player with an unbiased opinion of their talents and qualities

I have always rated Lockers and just like Sinfield they are both top quality players who can control the the side, They both bring a lot of qualities to their sides that fans wont easily recognise
As both players have aged they have adapted their games accordingley to bring their talents and leadership qualities to their sides

Sadly we won't appreciate how good they both were until they are no longer playing and controlling the side
Both are top quality players that will be hard to replace