No matter who is picked for England the blame lies with the RL for having a coach who is an assistant coach in the NRL. Could you see the Australian RL having their national coach as assistant coach at a super league club. Again another case of the RL not being fit for purpose.

Maybe it's an indication of how far behind the Aussies we are when our national coach takes up an assistant role in the NRL?
I for one think it's one of McNamaras better descisions.
The problem lies with a lop sided Super League, where clubs are not treated equally.
This is the reason why Australia can pick a team without some of its stars to beat a first choice England side.

Can't believe Sarginsson has been given stuck on this thread, he was absolutely superb in both of the matches he played. England's stand out performer for me.

Smith and Widdop have the potential to be a very good partnership and need to be kept together till the next World Cup.

I agree on all counts

I am the one who said that Sarginsson is doing nothing different to what he has been doing for the last couple of seasons, just a change of shirt colour!
If you class that as giving him stick, you need to have a word with yourself.
Sarginsson is a quality young centre but would not have got into the England side if he were still at London and there lies the problem with our set up and why we haven't got strength in depth to mount serious challenges on a regular basis against NZ and Australia.

I've read this thread from the beginning and when I got to Jon's post I thought I'd missed a page or something. Like you say, I'm not sure what his interpretation of giving stick is but imo your post doesn't qualify. The only player who has got stick is Joel Tompkins.

As for England, it's been a tournaments of if's buts and maybe's. A dodgy ref call and a couple of uprights stopped us making the final, which is a huge improvment over previous years down under. I've got to admit McNamara seems to have done a lot of things right with this England side and they're playing a good brand of RL but he's also made a few mistakes.

I'll give Matty Smith some stick - he's been crap - I don't think I saw a single decent kick in play in any of our games; the decision by McNamara to exclude Danny Brough was bonkers to start with, but it looks even worse now - he's better than Smith in every single aspect of his game, with perhaps the exception of temperament, in that he looks like he actually gives a damn.

Exactly what I thought, Shaun Johnsons kicks put pressure on England nearly every time, Matty smiths didn't put pressure on anyone..To not have danny brough's skill in the team is criminal and won't happen with McNamara in charge, hence he has to go IMO..

Well said that man. Spot on in every word you've just said. Worryingly, mcnamara for me makes some bad decisions. I'd rather have had tomkins at 7 and hardaker at full back than matty smith. He's not good enough at international standard, you need someone who can at the very least take the line on and keep defenders guessing. Brough outclasses him in every department. Aggression - check. Speed - check. Take the line on - check. Kicking - check. Passing - about the same.

Mcnamara should have been sacked after the world cup. His choice of halfback pairings have been drab but then throw Joel Tomkins in and putting Ferres in at hooker and it's laughable.

All that said, we should have won both games, but it would have been in spite of mcnamara.

This ^^^^

Yep that was madness.

I personally have no interest in whether England win or lose.

Without a player from your own club participating it just feels hollow, in fact most of the players in the England shirts are the same ones I dislike during the regular season .

I can't be bothered to read the majority of all the replies but from the first game I knew we where going to struggle. The team selection throughout was shocking, Farrell and Tomkins in the 2nd row, what did they do all series, nowt, Some of you lot might reply that Farrell set up the no try for Hall, but the video ref disallowed an aussie try similar to Hall's earlier in the game so there was no chance of him awarding Halls effort. There was no threat at all from the 2nd row all series, Farrell was put through a gap for his try and Tomkins got a lucky bounce for his effort. If we really wanted to compete I would have played one Burgess at prop the other at 13, with a 2nd row of O'Loughlin and either Ferres/Whitehead.
Then there was the selection of Charnley on the wing please tell me what he did all series, surely Makinson, T Briscoe, could have done better jobs. Also why no Saints players surely Makinson, Amor, Turner could have done a job for England
IMO if we can't beat the aussies when they have 21 yes 21 players missing there has to be something wrong, the fact that there wasn't a warm up game continues to dumbfound me, we've always started slow in these comps so lets have a run out against some other team for example in this instance a game against PNG/Fiji would have done us a world of good, giving the spine of the team (1,6,7,9,13) to get used to one and other.
I'm sick of hearing about how frustrating it was for the coach, I'd be ranting and raving letting the opposition back into the game is a cardinal sin for me, once you're on top, elite level professional sports people should be able punish opposition teams for the entire game not let them back into contests.
I dread to think about the next 4 nations if it's next year, the players will probably play more games than this so more injuries, fatigue and now lack of rest for the players who played for England for this time, how long off will they get this year and next.
So until we create more depth in our playing ranks, more creativity throughout the side and get a coach who looks at more than just players in the nrl and wigan we won't have a chance.

Happy then?
I'd like to reply but I can't be bothered either.