I think he's done a pretty decent job and is unfairly getting far too much stick.
We have played with structure yet been positive, the way we moved the ball around was great.
Yet again we were a number of very fine lines away where we could have won against both Aus and the Kiwis away from home.
I've seen far too many games in the past where we looked totally out of our depth.
For those who constantly carp about selection, he's shown he's more than capable of making difficult decisions and swapping players in or out. Look at Sarge, dropping Chase etc.
No one is ever going to agree with every decision a coach makes . I really don't think picking Whithead for exAmple would have raised our performances significantly last week.
The players selected made more than enough opportunities to win, it isn't as though we have a proven world beater who has been ignored.
Your four first paragraphs are 'presently' unarguable with. But the fifth in which you state that MacNamara has been shown to be capable of taking tough decisions, for example dropping or promoting to the team, are laughable.
In the last W/Cup he proved precisely the opposite and glaring though it was would not be budged on Chase V Widdop until the semi-final. Even then it was rumoured, that this was brought about by Chase's poor behaviour rather than a decision from the coach. Widdop proved that he had been the stand off we required throughout that comp in that match, every fan knew it should have been done before, Mac apparently did not.
He would still have had Sinfield on this tour, who has had very moderate to poor form for sometime along on this tour and, would have had him again as captain regardless. No matter how he would have performed, Mac would have kept that unwarranted faith. Possibly with the excuse of retaining the settled side a descriptive he has used so often previously.
Our team certainly did play so very well V NZ, they could even have won but for two coats of paint sending Widdops kicks the wrong side of the posts. We did create chances, we did NOT take enough of them. Watch the try that Oz scored V Samoa, five or six players touched the ball within 8 or so yards, before the try was scored, personally I would have been surprised if our lads would have been able to do so showing the same kind of composure that those Aussies HAD to, to make that score.
Sheen showed Mac how to handle players (yet again) and how to use subs, out of position ones at that, wisely and, to his teams best advantage.
This kind of ability is inbred, you either have it or you don't and I contend that in those areas of coaching, that Mac has probably not got the inbred skills to help his players, the team, from his off field position. I appreciate that he does not knock on, drop passes, etc, but there are avenues that a good coach should possess inherently and up to this stage of his stewardship, I have yet to see them displayed By Steve MacNamara.
He would still have had Sinfield on this tour, who has had very moderate to poor form for sometime along on this tour and, would have had him again as captain regardless. No matter how he would have performed, Mac would have kept that unwarranted faith. Possibly with the excuse of retaining the settled side a descriptive he has used so often previously.
Since Sinfield retired from internationals before this tour you’ll never know for sure if McNamara would’ve selected him.
melman wrote:
Our team certainly did play so very well V NZ, they could even have won but for two coats of paint sending Widdops kicks the wrong side of the posts. We did create chances, we did NOT take enough of them.
We bombed as many chances as the Kiwis. We’d have grabbed a draw at the end (a fair result) if we hadn’t needed to go for the win.
melman wrote:
Watch the try that Oz scored V Samoa, five or six players touched the ball within 8 or so yards, before the try was scored, personally I would have been surprised if our lads would have been able to do so showing the same kind of composure that those Aussies HAD to, to make that score.
TBH you don’t know that for sure – I think the England side has improved quite a bit as the tour went on.
melman wrote:
Sheen showed Mac how to handle players (yet again) and how to use subs, out of position ones at that, wisely and, to his teams best advantage.
Sheens has been lucky this time. Australia were well beaten in game 1 due to him not selecting enough props. They scraped a win in game 2 and came up against a Samoa that had shot their bolt the previous week in game 3. The Aussies improved as the tournament went on but I think you over rate them.
That's the key point, in my view. By the time Whitehead gets a run out, it's as sub half-way through a vital game when he hasn't played for over a month. And while Hardaker may be a daft lad, I've not seen any suggestion that he's been unprofessional on this tour. I think his exclusion is the biggest criticism of McNamara's judgement in my view. From an opposing fan's view, Hardaker was the single player at another club who caused the greatest rise in blood pressure when he got the ball. In the second half today when the defensive lines were getting straggly, Hardaker's running would have been devastating. Tomkins just didn't offer the same threat from fullback, and only someone who was defaulting to a "NRL over SL" position couldn't see that. If Tomkins had to be included for his undoubted talent, then the place to include him was either off the bench, or in the halves to inject some unpredictability into our rather pedestrian attack.
By the way, I was not one of those who criticised Sarginson's inclusion : he's a very good player, and has established himself as the first choice England centre in this competition. It's Watkins who should be looking over his shoulder after some seriously lacklustre performances.
I do prefer the NRL, but, I would have still preferred Hardaker for the same reasons you explain so very well. Tomkins is class, he is not a classy full back, although I would give him credit for his high ball taking today, something I am always usually very critical of from him.
His form in the NRL has been : superb at link play; moderate to poor under kicks and absolutely useless at returning from deep, with the ball in hand. I believe that Sam would be best up and around where the engine room is, For me his best strengths are, quickness off the mark and an unpredictable nature to perform the unexpected.
Sarginson did what good players are always capable of, when presented with an opportunity which he did so very well. Barring injury he has cemented a rep place for England for some time to come. Watkins I thought played his best game of the three today and surprisingly did some genuinely good defending too, but yes he has not at all, done what he gets away with at Leeds. Against top opposition by no means, he does need to raise his game at this level. I believe he gets it too easy to perform with Leeds and the fact that he has to do a lot more, Versus this class, possibly he needs to amend his game, unless, worse still, he just isn't capable of doing so.
As some one says, we defended better than we have in the recent past. But surely, if the coach is down under working he would naturally see what is required form that League in a defensive capacity? The reason I prefer the NRL is that there is as much emphasis put onto defending as there is on attacking. Closer games mostly resulting from that, whereas in the S/L scoring is the be all and end all, with a lot of sides seeming content for the other side to score with the thought that they will then try to score more! Up against S/Hemi sides that attitude will always fail.
Since Sinfield retired from internationals before this tour you’ll never know for sure if McNamara would’ve selected him.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it a given previous to the announcement from Sinfield that he was going to be Captain again?
We bombed as many chances as the Kiwis. We’d have grabbed a draw at the end (a fair result) if we hadn’t needed to go for the win.
Personally I was amazed we did not go for that draw considering that time had already been blown. For had the miracle occurred that Samoa did win with 8 points V Oz we would have been finalists anyhow with 3 league points to our name and a draw would still have looked better on the CV than yet another loss, wouldn't it?
TBH you don’t know that for sure – I think the England side has improved quite a bit as the tour went on.
Agreed, but the fact is most rep sides do as a rule when a league system is in force. I think we deserved to win both games V Oz and the Kiwi's but again we did not, do you know WHY, I don't?
Sheens has been lucky this time. Australia were well beaten in game 1 due to him not selecting enough props. They scraped a win in game 2 and came up against a Samoa that had shot their bolt the previous week in game 3. The Aussies improved as the tournament went on but I think you over rate them.
Samoa played the ref until they got behind too far and I believe that Luelea was penalised at least three times for offences that Aussie players were getting overlooked for. But they, the Aussies do know how to cash in when the opposition is under the cosh and yet again they did so when they could.
Sheens has been lucky? Beg to differ. He did choose poorly for the first match, but when looking like getting beaten by a better English team, in the first half of the second game, he pulled out the master strokes. Made his side play a different game and got the win by a masterstroke of subbing a prop, for an half back, who literally, as Craig Wing used to do, changed the game in their favour. I accept that there are contentions over the ref but really they won because they had the ability to change the impetus when they were practically down and out. I am certainly not overrating them at all, we should have beaten , WE DID'NT.
With McNamara out of the way there may be still time for Brough and certainly time for Atkins who will never be selected for England as long as he's the coach.
People talk as though we are miles away when the reality is we have been a missed tackle and a bad video refereeing decision away from two finals in the last twelve months. This is a mostly young group of players that have made this the best England team since we got rid of GB. Any perceived mistakes made can be learned from by both players and coaches. To make changes to the coaching now could derail all the massive improvements we have made and would only be compounded further if the only realistic option decided he didn't want the job.
