Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
the pieman
Posts: 1310
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 5:34 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by the pieman »

Being fair to the young lads, even the most pessimistic fans on here cut them some slack. Yes they got criticised but i dont recall anyone being OTT

The biggest issue IMO last year was Lam's stubborness to keep playing them week in week out, when it appeared that we had senior props available. We were all fully aware that he was flogging them, and it wasnt fair to them, as it was men v boys at times in some games
Exiled Wiganer
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:18 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by Exiled Wiganer »

Clearly, this is the right thing for Peet to say. Our problems in the forwards were evident from the facts - our forwards did not make ground (or breaks). They made no metres after contact, and, especially Byrne, made too many errors. The problem we have had for years is physics. If Walmsley and Partington hit the line at the same speed Walmsley has twice the impact. You simply cannot make a player as small as Partington into an effective prop. You will struggle to make a player as unskillful as Byrne into an effective player. Bullock in patches was genuinely effective, but was down the pecking order. Clark showed brief glimpses, but was even further down, and the least said about Clubb the better.

This year, the 2 new lads look like a major upgrade. Plus, Havard looks to have real potential, Singleton is good, Mago is a big lad and Ellis seems to know how to take the ball in. On that basis, we might be able to make yards in the middle for the first time in a long time.

Of course, the key point in this is will we even try to make yards in and after the tackle, or go down the route of relying on the outside backs to take the ball in, and the forwards simply to go to ground as soon as they can? Will Peetball look like the sort of game Saints play, or be Waneball mark 2 (but without Manfredi/Davies/Gildart to make yards...)? This time next month we will have a good idea.
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by fozzieskem »

the pieman wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:56 pm Being fair to the young lads, even the most pessimistic fans on here cut them some slack. Yes they got criticised but i dont recall anyone being OTT

The biggest issue IMO last year was Lam's stubborness to keep playing them week in week out, when it appeared that we had senior props available. We were all fully aware that he was flogging them, and it wasnt fair to them, as it was men v boys at times in some games
Agreed
Wintergreen
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by Wintergreen »

I wouldn't say they were given too much of a hard time.

I would say Smithies was an enigma. He went from a potential world beating tackling machine to a very average player in a year.

Partington has shown glimpses of promise (but he is never a prop), as has Havard .

I am unconvinced by the rest.
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by fozzieskem »

Wintergreen wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:20 pm I wouldn't say they were given too much of a hard time.

I would say Smithies was an enigma. He went from a potential world beating tackling machine to a very average player in a year.

Partington has shown glimpses of promise (but he is never a prop), as has Havard .

I am unconvinced by the rest.
Again I agree with what you're saying I've said it last season we simply dont know if these lads are the real deal,to me they all went backwards last season and where played into the ground by Lam they a have a clean slate and I hope a push on I suspect though a few won't we shall see though
Last edited by fozzieskem on Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
morley pie eater
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by morley pie eater »

Charriots Offiah wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:43 pm https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... s-22813160

Good points made by Matt Peet.
Thanks for posting this. Without criticising you in any way, could I point out that (as a 70 year old interweb user) I don't give my email address or sign up to any of these sites, and consequently struggled to read what Peet said, as most of it was covered with stuff requiring my details.

Josie often posts a link, but also pastes the text directly onto her post, which makes things easier.
. . . . . . ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
blindsideprop
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:50 am

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by blindsideprop »

Partington, Smithies and Byrne got a bit if flak but it was deserved as they were average at best.The are still young but need to step up this season and show some improvement.Hopefully they will do that.
morley pie eater
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by morley pie eater »

Matty Peet almost seems to be responding to the negative stuff posted on here throughout the season about the young forwards.

What do we get (mostly) in response? More negatives!!! Last season has gone. We have a new coaching team, some new players, and a new season. Give the lads a break, for goodness sake.
. . . . . . ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Exiled Wiganer
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:18 pm

Re: Matt Peet gives food for thought to critics of Wigan Warriors' young forwards

Post by Exiled Wiganer »

I would agree that the players were played into the ground - we played more league games than anyone else and there wasn’t nearly enough rotation. If this article is about what went wrong last year then my sense was that most people (on here and in the press) pointed out that we struggled to go forward. My point with Partington is that his problem as a prop has nothing to do with work rate it is that he is far too small. In a way it’s not even criticism, it’s his genes. There is no front line prop playing the game these days who is as small as he is. He might turn into a great 13, and I would be thrilled if he did.

As for Byrne, his skill levels and propensity for errors have been the same throughout his time with us, regardless of work rate.

On the plus side, I think that KPP, Shorrocks, Smithies, Havard and McDonnell are all class acts and would exempt all of our second rowers from criticism last year. I would also make the point that, despite having the worst attack in the league, our pack put in heroic efforts in defence, and many of the young lads were central to that. We finished 4th off the back of their digging deep for the cause,
Post Reply