Why are people talking about established combinations and putting hall and watkins together?

I've never witnessed hall play outside of watkins at leeds, ever.

Don't be ridiculous.

God forbid there be a player as good as Leeds player!

Having re-watched it (this time n TV), the two changes most needed are Williams and Bateman to be replaced. Widdop was poor but he can play better. The other two are not up to it at present. Also, Liam Farrell is a liability on attack - he consistently makes wrong decisions but I guess he's in for other reasons.

Can't say I've seen much from Percival to suggest he's ready for internationals. He's shown some classy touches, and he's shown himself to have a lot of potential, but I can't say I've seen him put in many 80 minute displays.

Cudjoe for Bateman as Bateman is not a centre and Gale for Williams, as Williams isn't a scum half

Way too much reliance on old favourites. Had James Graham grounded the brilliant tap through by Hodgson instead of falling on his nose and too embarressed to stand up afterwards, it may have been a different story.

That stated none of our kicks had any height on them making them too easy to take in. Williams at this level looks out of his depth (at least in that game).

If you look at where the ball went, I'd suggest it wasn't embarrassment preventing him from standing up straight after!

Agree entirely. The entire game seemed to be played on our LH side. I can understand NZ attacking there but we seemed to go that side most times we had the ball, which is bonkers when we have Watkins, possibly the most naturally talented player in the squad, wasted on the other side.

Not sure what went on on Saturday but I suspect players repeatedly taking the ball stood still, a ridiculously flat line and that when attacking you could have covered the whole team with a blanket may have been partially responsible.

Agree. & Watkins to left centre. Westwood in for Whitehead. Bateman or Farrell for other second row? Tough on Bateman after unnecessarily being asked to play out of position just because he filled in quite well when both his club's centres were injured; but Farell, just. McGillvary in for Burgess? Tough on him-but no, hope for Burgess to be given chance to shine on home ground. Two 40:20s by Gale could be the difference & Hardaker to link in between Watkins & Hall in attack.

Why would you move Watkins from the right centre to the left??

To me this only makes sense if you are pairing Leroy with Jerry on the right...

Just feel Watkins would pose more of a threat on the left and see more ball. I'd play the usual flat line in attack out left but with a steeper attack line out right. Gale could hang back on the left and then come on fast switch play to link up with steep attacking line on the right OR Widdop has the option to hit runners on his left. We need same effort in defence in test three but with more inventiveness on attack as above (& Gale's varietous kicking game) and a bit more bite up front (Westwood). Roby to start, Hodgson on interchange.

There were that many below par performances on Saturday that you struggle to make a case for who should and who shouldn't keep a place. I don't think a single player could really take too much credit from the game.

I've heard calls for the heads of Burgess, Bateman, Williams, Whitehead etc but as a team unit it was poor across the board. I'd be tempted to go with the same side but I'd probably move a more orthodox centre in to Batemans place in Cudjoe and then decide which player from Bateman or Whitehead moves out of the 17.

To make wholesale changes would single out players when really you could make a case for dropping the vast majority.

Id take Williams out of the firing line, it isnt fair to leave him in at this stage to execute a game plan that just isnt functining. The wide range of skills a top quality half needs are so underutilised that we arent going to see much of a drop off whoever we bring in to replace him.

Bateman isnt a centre and again, he needs taking out of the firing line. Too much on the line to be fitting a square peg in a round hole just to get him some experience.

Farrell has struggled too much going forward, he has been dominated nearly every hit up, he is 25 years old now and just hasnt performed in attack. His defence has been pretty good, but his attacking performance isnt good enough to justify his shirt.

i dont agree that we have been bad across the board, i think we have been bad in places, good in some others and and average mostly. I think Widdop is in a position where he needs to show something to keep his shirt, i think Whitehead has been ok but not what was necessary, and wouldnt argue if either were to be dropped (i would only rest Williams rather than drop Widdop simply because its an awful lot of pressure to put on Williams at this stage and at the end of a tough season that ended in disappointment for him)

But i think our front row has been pretty good, our hookers are pretty good, and with the little ball they have actually had, i think Watkins and Burgess have done pretty well actually and look a good partnership. Hardaker has been solid if unspectacular, Hall has worked hard, O'loughlin had a bad first half of the first game but has been decent since, Ferres has done well.

A proper centre, a bit more dynamism and if we are dreaming perhaps even and offload or two from the 2nd row and the most important a more expansive game plan and the game is ours for the taking.

What really brings home where he have gone wrong is the lack any dynamic players in that squad as a whole. There isnt an attacking 2nd row, McGuire has been the best half in biggest games of the year and doesnt get a look in, Shenton and Percival could at least have gotten the ball to hall in a bit of space, Cuthbertson and Walmsley can break a line and get the ball away,

There are cases for dropping 95% of them after Saturday though. The one thing id say about Williams is that he's bounced back very well at Wigan when he's had some poor games and I think we'll see him do that again.

Hardaker has been very quiet but then so has the full back line and that's because they're hardly seeing any qualify ball. I've not seen one ounce of space created for Watkins/Bateman and then in turn the wingers. I don't think changing personnel will create any more space. That will be done by changing our game plan and playing with some width.

People might not like this but I think we've missed Sam Tomkins massively. As that link man from fullback he ensured the centres/wingers got quality ball and took the pressure off the halves.

We have. And we (Wigan) are going to be missing him for quite a bit longer too.

thing is Tomkins wouldnt matter, attacking wise i could play full back for us on the last two games. You could have both Billy Slater and Greg Inglis playing at full back and they are going to look pedestrian when our most adventurous play is a drop off from first receiver.

Id be fine with leaving Williams in, but there is now pressure, not only on result but performance. Our halves havent even scaled the heights of average yet this series. We have got to the stage where in his third game in a row, a decider 'good for a young half finding his feet' isnt good enough. He needs to be good without qualification or its a disappointing series at the end of a disappointing year.

The issue with Bateman is a little different, what are we getting out of shoving him in there? He isnt going to be an international centre, he isnt an international standard centre, where is the upside here? I actually wouldnt have a problem with having him as an interchange forward and sending him out there for 10 or 15 minutes and telling him to be a mongrel, get under the kiwis skin, but i dont get why we are persevering with him at centre when in the next couple of years he isnt going to be there. Lets put an actual centre there.

I think it is unlikely anyone not in the 17 for the last 3 weeks would make a difference - they must be rusty not having played since September. Furthermore, Gale, Cudjoe or McGillvary would not make a difference behind a beaten pack. It was in the forwards that England lost, yet both Whitehead and Cooper got limited game time.

As for the halves, difficult to do much given the frequency that James Graham takes the ball to the line and then passes. If Williams was allowed to do that England get several breaks, Ferres, Farrell and Whitehead would all thrive off that. The coaches need to set the tactics rather than indulge favourite players.

Here's a change for the final test, some aggression! Totally absent from the series so far, say for the exception of SOL's hit on Blair and a couple of big hits from Whare. Seriously needs some biff to kickstart the game on Saturday.

Can I suggest England 'walk up' to the Haka, would at least generate some atmosphere

Agree. After some initial success, other NRL sides wised up to Canterbury's now rather tired tactic of using Graham as a pivot. Cooper looked to do pretty well to me in his limited time, he should get more game time at the DW.

Graham's passing became a problem at Canterbury when it went from being used sparingly to effectively using him as a halfback on every play. It became increasingly easy to read and in fact slowed down the play considerably as by the time he has passed the defence is set and its very hard to get the ball further wide.

McNamara needs to focus on backs scoring points, not forwards. Having rewatched the tries from the first test, it was a mistake to think that was likely to be repeated. Hardaker's knee aside, every other try NZ would have been really disappointed to let in.

McNamara needs to get the forwards to do their job - make yards and quick PTB. A pass or offload every now and then. But not dominating the play.

I disagree - the Dogs are at their best when he is at first receiver. He made the duds that are Hodkinson and Reynolds look good enough to play State of Origin. Only when Graham was missing in the early part of 2015 were they found out for the mugs they truly are when at first and second receiver rather than second and third. No coincidence that when Graham came back into the side and fit again the Dogs looked threatening all the way up to the referee effectively ending their semi-final with a dodgy call vs Roosters.

I do agree however that overkill is bad. Same for any play though. England are not good enough to utilise Graham's strengths to put it bluntly and thus, his touches are often wasted and reflect poorly on him.

That's the point - the Dogs went into overkill on the forwards as halfback thing. They were and are at their best when they mixed it up. When Graham first started passing it set up tries as other front rows weren't used to defending against it. The problem was when they started using it at the expense of their halfbacks. Hodkinson and Reynolds are pretty limited, but it got to the point where they were being cut out of the play by their forwards with Graham at times only playing as a halfback. Its all about balance.