Hindsight, eh?

In 2008 we scraped past PNG thanks to a crap refereeing decision, got utterly murdered by Australia and collapsed to get murdered by the kiwis in the second half. Performance wise we're much better this time. I don't see how home advantage makes than much difference.



Bevvy gate was the players fault IMO. They knew the rules but were unprofessional enough not to follow them. He could've handled the press stuff better I agree but at the end of the day it's up to players to control themselves. They're always moaning about not having opportunities to play on the big stage and get marketed properly yet a bunch of them thought going on the ale was more important on the eve of the world cup. Duh!



I agree with this. Hindsight? Maybe a bit but why would you go into the biggest test in years and only play 16 of your 17? It puts you at a clear disadvantage. Fatigue played a part in the end and we had fresh legs on the bench.

Whilst McNamara's got better performances out of the national side than the bloke before him he's got work to do before I have total confidence in him. I'd be minded to let him keep the job for now provided there's no significantly better candidates.

That was easily the best England/GB performance in over 20 years. McN must take some credit for that. You could argue that players wouldn't have gone out on the lash if McDermott or Wane had been coach, we will never know. But he handled those situations perfectly well IMO.
I can't get my head a round not bringing on the fourth sub though. I know Mac used to like having the guest kids spot on the bench next to him who he would never use, but we are talking about, supposedly, one of the best players in the country fresh & unused, which defies logic. I know some coaches do it but it always strikes me as trying to look like a smart arss.

Whoever is on charge is going to struggle if we don't play the ANZAC teams on a regular basis. I think a lot of the improvement this WC was due to more NRL players being drafted into the England team as they are more used to the intensity and speed of these games.

On a similar basis the 2nd level countries would also benefit from more international games - for experience and finance. Hopefully the powers that be will sort out a serious international timetable

Sadler's idea of a test series versus NZ while the origin is on isn't a bad idea.

Where would the series be played? It wouldn't be ideal for English players to be flying out to NZ between Super League rounds. It would handicap teams with England international players. Actually, we could benefit from this.

Dubai or South Africa would work.

Logistically it's a good idea but not sure it would generate the crowds or media interest.

That squad contained Mark Calderwood, Lee Smith, Ade Gardner and Paul Wellens.

This was by far a better squad. Home advantage plays a huge part. New Zealand winning the last two tournaments in the Southern Hemisphere but failing to even make the final in the four nations here proves this.

England got to a stage even I could have got us to. Both the games against OZ and NZ won winnable, but we've come up shirt.
Mcnamra has made many mistakes. Chase, Briugh, Widdop, only playing 16 men in the most brutal game I've ever seen. One of them only playing 10 mins.

He's won once against OZ/NZ in seven attempts. Throw in defeats against exiles and Italy, I can't understand why they think he's a good coach basing it on one performance and comparing it to our worst tournament since time began

Well we certainly need more competitive international matches but if there was an easy solution to that then we'd already be doing it. I'm not a huge fan of seeing our best English players all heading over to Oz either. I want to see the majority of them week in week out playing over here.

We need to get serious about developing France & Wales. Make it compulsory to have at least one French or welsh player in yor squad

I don't think many Bulls' fans would argue with that - how much better would the Bulls be with the three Burgesses in the squad?

Well, now the dust has settled, and McNamara has conclusively proved he can coach. He made tough and controversial decisions but the indisputable fact is that England were better than NZ; we had a game plan to win, we neutralized their main threats and, indisputably, were the better team on the day.

It was a heartbreaking way to exit but nobody can understate McNamara's performance in first, a highly competitive effort against the best team on the planet, and then the NZ effort. For the first time in a long time, sat watching the NZ game I felt that we were more than equal to them and had we not slipped up in the last second, then nobody could have begrudged what would have been a thoroughly deserved win.

I know the reason for the thread, but it must have been galling for the anti-McNamara trolls, who in truth know just how good we were, and will have been the only ones outside NZ cheering as the final play went down.

Well done McNamara and the team, we are out, but don't deserve to be, and did the country proud. Nobody could have done better.

exactly how I see it, well said FA.

Couldn't agree more!

If it wasn't for the Gurgess tackle at the end it would class as the best example of nullifying SBW I have witnessed.

I was actually really impressed with how Ferres stood up to SBW. Almost every SBW attack was met head on by Ferres, even in attack he ran hard and made pretty good meters. Was one of the best games I have seen him play.

I do disagree that the best team lost. These teams we're evenly matched. Both teams had chances to score but the game was equal, even until the last set of 6. There we're times when England we're in control, but there were also times when the NZ team kept us in our own half (1st quarter of the second half).

The England pack is probably the best on the international stage, but the backs are still a long way behind the AUS and NZ teams. Hall is probably the only player that you would pick above the competitors. Until we have stronger backs, we will always struggle to kill games off.

Backs? You can't have the best in every single position in the squad, but in Tomkins and Hall we have two of the very top echelon. And unless you count Hall failing to take the interception, I would say that the decisive moments in the game were the failure of Sinfield to kick for touch in the last minute, and coming out of the line for the try, plus of course the high shot by George Burgess. I thought our backs did better than NZ's. I thought that NZ considrably got the better end of the decisions in the game, particularly in the first hour, and of course the teams were evenly matched; it's what you want, but not what we've come to expect. A NZ world champ team, with SBW in it, and we think we are evenly matched. What else does McNamara have to do?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking Mcnamara. I am probably a doubter of his abilities, but the game was a classic. Probably the best game I have ever seen. It's just a shame there had to be a loser. When we we're on top in the first half, I think we needed to score more. We just can't seem to find the killer touch too often in 1 game.

If he does stay in his post as England coach, I expect to see a lot of changes for the future. Too many players let themselves down during this tournament. His leadership qualities are going to be tested further. Our backs do show potential, but they are not dangerous enough going forward, and they always look a little suspect when defending. It's a shame the likes of Atkins and Watkins aren't playing for NRL clubs, would do their game the world of good.

If I we're to judge Englands performance in the tournament as a whole, I'd have to say we played superb for 79 mins against NZ, we played well for 30 mins against Aus, but the victories against the 'lesser' nations were uninspiring. Still plenty of room for improvement.

The only thing I'd add is that no team plays top of its game all the time, not us, not Aus, nobody. The trick is to play really well when you really need to, make sure you do the business when you don't play well, and peak at the right time.

And one good sign of a good coach is to be the better team (or if you like, at least equal) despite, if you are right, having inferior backs.

Best post of the thread. The spin some are putting on two home defeats to Australia and New Zealand, despite England having a superior pack and clearly the best player of the tournament, is simply silly.

Yet they lost???



And you know this how, exactly? Nobody whatsoever?

Stop dressing up opinion as fact FA.

The problem is that there are some people on here that have been strangely off with their views, and, of course FA who was talking mince as usual. The usually sensible Bullseye is actually trying to suggest that home advantage does not make much difference FFS. What a lot of nonsense that is. How can playing at home NOT be an advantage? Your conditions, your crowd, your ability to set up the pitches how you want them to be.

FA, as usual, shows that despite his undeniable love of the game of RL, he still has learned nothing about it whatsoever. It was a failed competition for England RL, despite the wealth of talent they had available and no FA spin will paper over the cracks.

In fairness, I bet there were a few Aussies that were ing themselves too.

What, you are SUCH a dolt that you think "Nobody could have done better" is a claim of FACT?



OMFG. Your skull would give a neutron star a good run for thickness. FACT.