Our pack

[jobo]

Watcher, disagree about Lockers. At youth level he was an excellent stand off, with huge natural aptitude for the game.

The problem this past couple of seasons has been injury and the fact that he's just had to do too much

With a talented half like Deacon, alongside Sam, taking a lot of the responsibility I think that this season, Lockers especially in attack will really come into his own.

As for the rest of the pack 1 or 2 will flop but the others will not.

[cpwigan]

Happy New Year WW

It's tricky. Parramatta won plenty with a supposedly powder puff pack and a supreme back line. The Wigan pack was often perceived as weak during the glory days. The Bradford and wire packs were seen as magnificent but they won hardly anything.

Back rowers. I would argue we have many quality ones and more coming through. We miss Hock but which team would not. We have Farrell and Mossop (who could play prop) waiting for a chance just as Flannagan did for so long.

We have young props such as those who have already playedf numerous games and a young fiery prop in Ben Davies. I would think and expect that 1 prop would emerge from Prescott, O'Carroll and Davies. We know Fielden, Coley have to stand up and be counted. As an impact prop we know Feka is the best in SL.

I expect our forwards to be faster / stronger / bigger from proper conditioning and hopefully smarter from improved coaching. On that basis I say give them a chance and hope that MM and co deliver.

For all the brawn you still need brains and always have done. It is rarely an either / or but I will take a smart team over a bruising team every day of the week. We all watched Wigan win a WCC v the Broncos in Aus with a pack that lacked masses of grunt and had to play McGinty at prop IIRC. With the brains of an Edwards or the skill of a Robinson that pack would not have contained the Broncos. Andy Gregory could turn forward effort into wins / trophies. Sometimes on the back foot too. Forward dominance is great and preferred but a pack that defends well is probably most important.

[cpwigan]

I have to say IMO the old style ball playing loose forward is dead and has been for a long time. A pack cannot carry such a forward any more. Dallas Johnson shows the modern loose forward and no disrespect to him (he will be outstanding for Catalans) but he has far less skill than Lockers. Whatmough / Gallen both outstanding players but modern loose forwards. Sam Burgess showed that a modern loose forward can have no ball playing skill but masses of offloading and running/line breaking ability. Ellery was a great 13 but he was a runner not a passer. Maybe Ellery was the benchmark / signal for a new modern loos forward.

In the modern game IMO. 9, a halfback/two halfbacks and 1 are far more important attackers than the loose forward. The 13 and 1 are key in terms of moving around positionally as play changes. Most players play in a very fixed positio. Half backs are often restricte to a single side of the POTB. Maybe the fullback has become the modern equivalent of the old time ball playing loose forward?

[Wigan Watcher]

Happy New Year WW

It's tricky. Parramatta won plenty with a supposedly powder puff pack and a supreme back line. The Wigan pack was often perceived as weak during the glory days. The Bradford and wire packs were seen as magnificent but they won hardly anything.

Back rowers. I would argue we have many quality ones and more coming through. We miss Hock but which team would not. We have Farrell and Mossop (who could play prop) waiting for a chance just as Flannagan did for so long.

We have young props such as those who have already playedf numerous games and a young fiery prop in Ben Davies. I would think and expect that 1 prop would emerge from Prescott, O'Carroll and Davies. We know Fielden, Coley have to stand up and be counted. As an impact prop we know Feka is the best in SL.

I expect our forwards to be faster / stronger / bigger from proper conditioning and hopefully smarter from improved coaching. On that basis I say give them a chance and hope that MM and co deliver.

For all the brawn you still need brains and always have done. It is rarely an either / or but I will take a smart team over a bruising team every day of the week. We all watched Wigan win a WCC v the Broncos in Aus with a pack that lacked masses of grunt and had to play McGinty at prop IIRC. With the brains of an Edwards or the skill of a Robinson that pack would not have contained the Broncos. Andy Gregory could turn forward effort into wins / trophies. Sometimes on the back foot too. Forward dominance is great and preferred but a pack that defends well is probably most important.

I reluctantly disagree with most of what you say, I will say in our glory days we had a good pack and the likes of Platt led from the front so much so that the down unders rated him as one of the best props in the world....

The green and gold have always had a strong pack that have built the platform for the backs….. Last year showed weaknesses in their forwards that led to us getting on top with yes…our forwards, it ironic that it was a lack of power from the green and gold that help us to do well against them…..

I can only reiterate that without domineering forwards, a game cannot be won.

[cpwigan]

Haven't you just contradicted yourself WW?

I agree with your premise that the Green and Gold pack was not that good in 2009 and both NZ and England forwards enjoyed successes v them but at the end of the day the Aussies won with a poorer pack thanks to the brilliance of their backs (in particular Inglis) which by your own admission should never happen.

NSW often have supposedly the better pack v Queensland but in the lasst 4 series the Maroons have won series after series due to a magnificent backline.

[Wigan Watcher]

Haven't you just contradicted yourself WW?

I agree with your premise that the Green and Gold pack was not that good in 2009 and both NZ and England forwards enjoyed successes v them but at the end of the day the Aussies won with a poorer pack thanks to the brilliance of their backs (in particular Inglis) which by your own admission should never happen.

NSW often have supposedly the better pack v Queensland but in the lasst 4 series the Maroons have won series after series due to a magnificent backline.

Sorry no contradiction,
I stated that their pack was not as good and in fact weaker than normal but still matched ours for periods of the game that led...yes led to their backs doing the business.... granted there is always brilliance that comes along from backs to score tries, but over 80 mins it needs the forwards to put down the undercoat for the gloss to shine.

[Wigan Watcher]

Watcher, disagree about Lockers. At youth level he was an excellent stand off, with huge natural aptitude for the game.

The problem this past couple of seasons has been injury and the fact that he's just had to do too much

With a talented half like Deacon, alongside Sam, taking a lot of the responsibility I think that this season, Lockers especially in attack will really come into his own.

As for the rest of the pack 1 or 2 will flop but the others will not.

Fair comment and i agree that a young Lockers had great hands but we can only comment on the player we see now and that isnt an attacking forward is it!

[cpwigan]

Haven't you just contradicted yourself WW?

I agree with your premise that the Green and Gold pack was not that good in 2009 and both NZ and England forwards enjoyed successes v them but at the end of the day the Aussies won with a poorer pack thanks to the brilliance of their backs (in particular Inglis) which by your own admission should never happen.

NSW often have supposedly the better pack v Queensland but in the lasst 4 series the Maroons have won series after series due to a magnificent backline.

Sorry no contradiction,
I stated that their pack was not as good and in fact weaker than normal but still matched ours for periods of the game that led...yes led to their backs doing the business.... granted there is always brilliance that comes along from backs to score tries, but over 80 mins it needs the forwards to put down the undercoat for the gloss to shine.

Wasn't the key territoral advantage gained not through forwards but through a vastly superior kicking game and the ability of the full back to return the ball well. Many of the tries scored by Aus were often scored from deep in their own half through quality passing and having players like Inglis to break through.

I would argue England's forwards often dominated their counterparts for much of the games and Sam Burgess was individually better than any Aus forward but the Aus forwards/team defended superbly and kicked fantastically. After all a kick gains more distance than 5 drives in the majority of games.

So the point still holds true. Aus won matches without their forwards being dominant. it is harder winning that way but certainly possible.

I can even recall days of old when Bradford bashed us all over the park at Odsal but we got the wins. You could go back even further and recall how the Wigan 'team' often beat huge juggernaught packs in the 50s and 60s.

[Wigan Watcher]

Haven't you just contradicted yourself WW?

I agree with your premise that the Green and Gold pack was not that good in 2009 and both NZ and England forwards enjoyed successes v them but at the end of the day the Aussies won with a poorer pack thanks to the brilliance of their backs (in particular Inglis) which by your own admission should never happen.

NSW often have supposedly the better pack v Queensland but in the lasst 4 series the Maroons have won series after series due to a magnificent backline.

Sorry no contradiction,
I stated that their pack was not as good and in fact weaker than normal but still matched ours for periods of the game that led...yes led to their backs doing the business.... granted there is always brilliance that comes along from backs to score tries, but over 80 mins it needs the forwards to put down the undercoat for the gloss to shine.

Wasn't the key territoral advantage gained not through forwards but through a vastly superior kicking game and the ability of the full back to return the ball well. Many of the tries scored by Aus were often scored from deep in their own half through quality passing and having players like Inglis to break through.

I would argue England's forwards often dominated their counterparts for much of the games and Sam Burgess was individually better than any Aus forward but the Aus forwards/team defended superbly and kicked fantastically. After all a kick gains more distance than 5 drives in the majority of games.

So the point still holds true. Aus won matches without their forwards being dominant. it is harder winning that way but certainly possible.

I can even recall days of old when Bradford bashed us all over the park at Odsal but we got the wins. You could go back even further and recall how the Wigan 'team' often beat huge juggernaught packs in the 50s and 60s.

four questions:

Why not have a team of backs on the field then?

Could a team of forwards win a game?

Could a team of backs win a game?

Why did we do so badly last year?

[lucky 13]

In our glory days we had a good pack?? Did GB not feild an all Wigan pack at lang park and stuff the Roos? off memory....... Skerrit Mcdermot Platt Mcginty Betts Clarke. Not too weak that one. On the other hand like CP I do think you can win games with just a decent pack but great backs. Sadly or should it be luckily no team in SL as a very good quality pack. Even though on the last couple of years form ours is not great it could be good enough? I also think we will see more grit and determination for a lot of reasons, Coley, Feilden, Baily, Fekka, and Mclorum last years of contracts. Competition from young players who with new coaches think they have a chance of a game.New improved attitude and hopefully ideas. All points to us being better and looking at the other teams Leeds are best but we can do them.