I still can't see justification for Graham.

Graham is one of the senior guys in the England squad. Heck he was the England captain for the 4 nations in 2010! On top of that he's been a key figure in successful sides in both the NRL and SL. The guy knows the game and he also knows where the line is and when not to cross it!

Ask yourself this - if it was Lockers, Morley or Peacock who'd gone out would you have trusted their judgement to do so? Graham falls into that same category of player for me.

As a side note is this not his 1st real transgression aside from onfield incidents? Did it warrant such a severe punishment and one that also hurt the side so much?

Only if you ignore what he's done at club level. If I was McNamara I'd have concerns about that attitude of a player who had a ban for doing cocaine, then later refused to train for his club, then later turned his back on a transfer which he had demanded. Not to mention manhandling a ref, and getting bans for eye gouging and fighting in major games.

If I was him and I still gave a chance to a player with that track record, then after we suffered the worst England defeat in god knows how long that player went on to ignore a drinking ban then not turn up for training the next day, I'd send him home as well. I'm not a fan of McNamara generally but he was in the right here IMO. I wonder how many players would happily not drink all year if it meant they could pull on the English jersey.

To answer your points individually -

He overslept by ten minutes. I'm not sure that you are correct about him being physically incapable of getting out of bed.

Nothing in my post was belittling of any player or their preparation, if it was then I apologise

As I said I personally don't drink, but I don't think having a drink after a game is such a bad thing, it was a whole week before the next game

I don't personally know Gareth Hock and I'm sure he wouldn't take my advice anyway. I would have advised him to toe the line. but that he went out with six others for a drink after the game doesn't in my view warrant being thrown off the team.

Unlike yourself I actually went to Cardiff to support the team and was disappointed that we didn't win. In my view James Graham, Gareth Hock and Mickey Mac would have given us the edge over that Aussie team.

Team discipline takes many forms. Treating grown men like children and banning them from having an after match drink is in my view silly. It was the indiscipline of Burgess, Ablett and Westwood that gave away the penalties that cost England the game. Hock is always slated for this and yet I don't think he is any worse than others.

I won't take your insults personally. I was offering a view counter to the prevailing view on the thread and may have exaggerated the point a little - which is that McNamara had plenty of time to prepare the best England team to win the game and he failed to do so. That is bad management. I used the Aussies as an example of how bad boys like Greg Bird seem to be welcomed into the team ethic provided they perform on the pitch, which at the end of the day is all that matters. Look at the score - England don't get extra points for their so-called 'disciplined' approach do they? Aussie still won.

And at the end of the tournament McNamara will be out of a job - and rightly so because if a National Team manager can't mange the players at his disposal then he fails. Which is totally different from managing a club. SW and IL were right to do what they did to Hock. Managing a national team is about winning a tournament over 5 weeks then they don't play for another year so yes, there has to be room for mavericks like Hock because they help to win games. Who are the Aussies more scared of? Read Terry Newton's book about the 2006 series if you are not sure.

Sorry, but if you think it's ok for professionals to behave in an unprofessional way we will have to agree to differ.

If you believe that you will believe anything. He missed the session and medical.

You should also study the effects of alcohol it can have effects longer than a week and when your'e aiming to be at 100 percent for the biggest game of your'e life all those 1 percents make the difference.

"Those 1 percents" only "make the difference" if the sides are EVENLY matched.

Add 1 per cent to Carl Ablett's optimum performance and you've still got rubbish.

Take 1 per cent from James Graham's optimum performance because he had a drink a week before the game and he's still good enough to - as you say "make the difference".

If you think it's ok to deliberately pick a sub standard team against Australia then we will also have to agree to differ. In an ideal world we would have dozens of players that are good enough to beat Australia. But we don't. You are an idealist, I am being realistic and pragmatic. Would I pick Hock if we had someone better? No - but we don't.

I think you are confusing club management with International management. When you are at a club, you can sometimes take a defeat with the eye on longer term planning. So you discipline players knowing that it benefits the club in the longer term. With International management you only get one chance - there is no longer term. Therefore you can't afford to make up rules that may be professional but are unrealistic and detrimental to team spirit.

I agree with the above poster who argued that James Graham is experienced enough to decide for himself how he prepares for a game, and as a former captain should be trusted. I think that Hock polarises opinion and whilst he may have acted unprofessionally the reaction from McNamara was contrary to what was required by England. As the game proved - we could have done with those players.

I'm afraid your arguments are facile. McNamara over reacted. It should have been kept in-house. Players were disciplined. The game was lost. And with it, England's chances of winning the tournament.

You have a right to your'e opinion, but we have seen what team discipline does it makes average squads good and good squads champions. I would never want to revert back to pre Madge days at wigan and i am glad Mcmamara stood his ground and earned the respect of the players 'Ryan Hall'.

The coach sets the rules not former captains, he will be the one getting the blame not the players.

forgot to add, Picking players just because of their abilities but ignore the circumstances is for primary school not professional coaches. The only people in the wrong was the players not the coach, there big boys and can decided for them selves if they didn't agree with the rules they should of refused the invitation to the national squad.

Where in my post was I arguing about Wigan??? I have made a clear distinction between managing club players and managing international squads.

And stop putting "your'e" - it's "your opinion"

it makes no difference if its international or club level, if anything its more important at international level to have strong discipline in the camp. your welcome.

This comment set me thinking about how we approach Internationals generally compared to the Aussies. To me the Aussies will do anything to win. They will try and get the game played with an Aussie ref with rules interpreted their way and the last thing they would do is drop one of their best players even though they have plenty of alternatives.

We on the other had always seem to do the "right thing" when we have not got the luxury they have. For as long as I can remember we have had roughly just about enough players to form a team good enough to give us a chance but sending Hock home isn't the first time we have reduced that small number even further.

I remember years ago Joe Lydon and Des Drummond missed a tour down under because they got into a scrap at Central Park during a game that spilled over the barrier into the crowd. I can't remember if there was any more to it than that but they were kicked out of the tour squad.

I was flabbergasted. They were key players who we could not afford to leave out and I am certain the Aussies would not have done the same thing. We lost as usual. I am sure there have been other occasions were for some reason our best squad has been reduced by our own management but I just can't remember them at the moment.

As to Hock, well in my opinion had any other player done as he did I reckon that player would still be in the squad and if I am right on that score McNamara has punished Hock based on Hock's reputation not just on what he did in the England camp. If so that is wrong but either way I reckon if he was an Aussie not only would he still be in the squad but he'd have probably played in the game as well.

I totally agree with you Dave and that Aussie desire to win is ugly. Ive been to way too many international matches were the aussies refs give us nothing and then compare those to the Morley red card by Ganson. I will never part with another penny of my money to watch another international match Ive had 25 years of hurt.

I agree with pretty much everything you say about the Aussie s and have banged on for 20 year as about giving them nothing when they come here as that's what we get from them.
With regards to Lydon Etc. I'm pretty sure their were other mitigating factors and I believe iirc that there were court cases involved.

However, with regards to hock and if any other player had done the same I disagree.
There are lots of assumptions in your post re hock so I'll go off what I've been told and if that is true the camps well shut.
There were lots of rumours when he left wigan and some posters tried to have the rest of us believe he was mainly the innocent party and the other players would soon walk out and follow him. That was way off the mark and nothings changed imo with this scenario to make me believe that hocks positives would outweigh the total negatives he brings to the team environment.

. Double post