Higham Knew Nothing About the Netwon Thing

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:



However all this "did he, didn't he" stuff deflects from what I think is the real issue. The fact IL was asking about Newton's availability.

When we have Higham contracted to us this season and have no reason to believe he won't accept an offer of a new contract in 2009 I find that a bit odd.

The justifications IL gave for this in his statement don't make a great deal of sense to me unless he wanted Newton in preference now and/or in 2009. I find it very odd to be enquiring about a player in a position you have covered.

Now if he had been asking about whether Sam Burgess was available that would be different as I think we are a prop light. That would make sense.

Maybe, but to complete that analogy you'd have to imagine Fielden or Feca being offered in exchange, without their knowledge.

McNamara wasn't shouting off about rejecting enquiries for other Bulls players so I suspect IL spoke to Bradford specifically about Newton.

Whether IL made an enquiry or an offer, Higham knows his chairman was speaking to Bradford about the possibility of Newton being released.

We would never have known were it not for McNamara being stupid but we shouldn't let that issue and saying how good it is for IL to comment mean we forget he was apparently seeking to replace Higham.

Dave

True, but it's not the replacing of Higham that's the important issue here (irrespective of who's the better player), it's the fact that it was done behind Higham's back, and the message that sends out, not only to Micky but to the rest of the team.

[lucky 13]

GeoffN posted:


True, but it's not the replacing of Higham that's the important issue here (irrespective of who's the better player), it's the fact that it was done behind Higham's back, and the message that sends out, not only to Micky but to the rest of the team.

It's not nice to find out about things like this but all this depends on the integrity of the parties involved.
All chairmen inquire and offer deals involving player swaps eg Phil Ford and Steve Donlan was part of the Hanley deal (not comparing Newton to Hanley before some body says it) not many thoughts for Phil or Steve ?
I know opinions differ on who would be best for wigan between the two in question but this happened in reverse when Newton left Milward getting Higham .
These things happen all the time the difference is this time Macnamara made it public which means he did not bother what effect this would have on Higham , you may say it's not his fault but it's also not a very nice trait of his character to do it .

[cpwigan]

Luck I may be wrong but I think Nobby only picked Higham for GB after losing either KC or/both Terry for a variety of reasons.

[lucky 13]

cpwigan posted:
Luck I may be wrong but I think Nobby only picked Higham for GB after losing either KC or/both Terry for a variety of reasons.

I think KC was injured and he came on as sub for Newton which is my point it's not that he doesn't rate him just not as highly . Do you think he is a better player off the bench CP ?

[AncientWarrior]

lucky 13 posted:
The fact is Higham is not a starting hooker, he is a impact player is the reason for all this.
His style is much more suited to coming on and running at tired defenders .
Nobby seems to have the same lines of thought ,that does not mean he thinks he's second rate just Wigan need a hooker who's game is more adequate to fill the role from kick off .
Nobby picked Micky at international level off the bench so that must mean he saw something in him .
I can see Wigans lines of thought on this , I like Micky as a player and he seems a good bloke I think he puts 100% in week after week and in an ideal world we would have Newton starting and Micky coming off the bench with Macalorum covering for injuries from and getting a bit of game time from time to time learning his trade .
The cap makes this a no goer , and ;I stress again I like the bloke; I can still see Wigans line on this
weather you agree is a matter of opinions but the coach sees it the same way as me he is not a starting 9 .

I agree with most of your points but I think the time has come for McIlorum to 'win his spurs'. In other words he should be the bench player.

I admire all three players but I know that Noble won his trophies on the back of a big, rough, bullying front row which could quickly 'soften-up' the opposition. Newton excels in this role (and before Daveo comes on 'banging on' about Newton's disciplinary record, I know, I know, but it 'goes with the territory) and he would be a good acquisition.

'As we all know, Higham's undoubted talents lie elsewhere so if he is the starting No. 9 (as he will be) then Plan B is the order of the day and speed must replace power - and probably thuggery.

[cpwigan]

:conf: Tricky one Lucky

Conventional theory suggests so. Very few if anybody will agree with what I am about to say. (Nothing new there) However, is fatigue a factor in RL any more? To me momentum and field position are everything. At the start of a game teams are looking to make hard yards, playing it conservatively, great kick and chase, strong defence. Given that scenario, an hooker like Higham might be better starting.

I am presuming we will no longer start with Feka so I see our starting pack being mobile and keeping it very simple trying to eliminate mistakes, winning the ruck. Surely Higham scooting is better in that scenario. Getting defences on their back foot letting Trent have space for his kicks etc.

Hopefully dominating the game would then allow us to bring on more creative or destructive players. At a time in the game and a position on the field when we are looking to play more expansive etc.

I do not like timed interchanges. I think what is happening in the game should reflect in your timing of interchanges.

Personally I think Cameron Smith is the ideal type of hooker these days. Farrah, Payne (?) too. However, I do think Nobby is weaker in attack than defence and he relies on a sideways, throwing dummys type hooker to bring some variety to his attack. Hence he did well with Lowes and prefers KC and Newton to Highams/Robys/Burrow.

Re Newton. Too old for me. We also have lots of hookers coming through. The difference between Newton and Higham in ability is IMO negligible. If we were to replace Higham it would have to be with somebody far better. I cannot see any British hooker that is available who fits the bill. Moreover, what Nobby talked about last season on occasions was consistency/continuity/familiarity between 9.7 and 6. I we got rid of Higham we would lose that.

[cpwigan]

Just a suggestion, if Higham started, we got a roll on, then hooker B comes on, then depending on how the game has progressed. If we were dominant I would brig Mickey on for the last 5 minutes of the first half and the start of the 2nd.

[lucky 13]

I can see what you mean CP but the fact remains Higham does not make that impact starting a game. Even though I like him I dont think he is that good to play the role .You can see watching us last year our best form was when we reverted to him coming from the bench .
Now if we had a Cameron Smith it would be different because he is in a higher class (to Newton as well) and can make big plays and graft the ideal modern hooker, a role that KC as done at saints for the past decade .
The spot is one of the most influential on the field , not a coincidence that saints have had such a good run with KC in that position. Also the impact Higham and now Roby have made following him onto the pitch can be attributed to him in a way .

[cpwigan]

Totally agree with you re importance. I think it can be argued that 9 and 7 are the 2 key positions in modern RL. Certainly the old 13,7 and 6 are long gone. Even 6 is less influential than it used to be and often 7 and 6 have to switch roles as they do at Wigan to get 6 on the ball more.

I believe a lot of our problems in Britain stem from too simplistic / poor yardage sets and that the Aussies have advanced beyond that which in turn means that hookers have evolved too. Our hookers seem to be either/or types.

I do think we are behind other SL teams in our attacking play, as an example, the best will run a play where they say drop off or switch the ball back inside BUT then have another player hitting a hole for that player who has just received the ball. We rarely seem to have that second phase player. As it stands IMO we rely on Trent pulling rabbits out of hats.

[GeoffN]

cpwigan posted:


I do think we are behind other SL teams in our attacking play, as an example, the best will run a play where they say drop off or switch the ball back inside BUT then have another player hitting a hole for that player who has just received the ball. We rarely seem to have that second phase player. As it stands IMO we rely on Trent pulling rabbits out of hats.

Agreed. It's seemed to me that we've had quite a few players recently who were good at that type of offload, but too often there's been nobody there to take the pass. Ashton did it well when he was here, but not many otherwise.

Seems to me that players don't read the game as much as they used to, relying too much on set plays instead.