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.

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

So, Sinfields gone, and we win a test series........... Just playing devils advocate, because its a stupid argument...

I had to laugh as the Teams were taking the field before the start of the game, the young girl who walked out with Lockers wasn't impressed with him,she wouldn't hold his hand,the look on his face , priceless.

If you read it again you'll see that I'm actually praising Lockers
So I'm not sure what planet your on pal?

As i said, i was playing devils advocate... ... Pal..

I have a couple of friends who are "inside the Wigan system" When they tell you that the likes of Ryan Hoffman, Pat Richards and Jeff Lima say that O'Loughlin is up there with the BEST players they have EVER played with or against than you appreciate just how good he is.

What's always stood out to me about SOL is that he plays his best for England. If every other player did the same we'd be much harder to beat. Sadly too many look like startled rabbits.