Attack not functioning?

cpwigan · Post by **cpwigan** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:14 am

Hock took Keith Mason on and sorted him. I think in terms of going toe to toes I would back Hock compared to most if not all the present squad.

pedro · Post by **pedro** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:33 am

endoman wrote:Only 2 teams have scored less than we have, that must be concerning.

didnt realize that, it is

irishwarrior · Post by **irishwarrior** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:34 am

cpwigan wrote:Hock took Keith Mason on and sorted him. I think in terms of going toe to toes I would back Hock compared to most if not all the present squad.

im with you on that cp, he has that presence about him. Ive played Gaelic with a few guys who just have that presence, a nastiness really and not always the biggest guys on the field but someone you know would sort the situation out if it arose

butt monkey · Post by **butt monkey** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:00 am

cpwigan wrote:If Mickey Mac can keep improving his attack then that would be fabulous, did he kick a 40-20 v Wire?

Sam did, not MM.

pedro wrote:
endoman wrote:Only 2 teams have scored less than we have, that must be concerning.
didnt realize that, it is

Neither did I!!!

butt monkey · Post by **butt monkey** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:05 am

thomo wrote:it has been commented on this thread about the players we have missing - i put this on anther tread.

I dont like a winger on the bench

for me - it has to be four forwards - ideally, two props, a second rower and a hooker.

Wigan needed an experienced back on the bench.

The team has been found wanting too often this season playing with four forwards on the bench and constantly having to play Joel or Lockers in the backs to cover injuries etc. I agreed with Dave O that my thoughts would be Amos on at full back with Sam moving to 6 and Leuleui interchanging with the hooker as he so effectively did last season.

emperorkel · Post by **emperorkel** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:00 am

First of all let’s give credit to Wolves, they out played us looked fitter sharper and had more ideas than us.
To my mind we have not looked like a team this year, there is no support play and we are lacking the spark we had last year, maybe the team is complacent because they are champions and they think other teams will lie down and be rolled over. It aint going to happen lads you have got to work harder than last year.
It is blindingly obvious to me that we have to get a right side centre, Marsh is not the answer and even Goulding is starting to look as if he has lost interest. The Gleason problem needs sorting quickly and if he is not to play again we need an experienced replacement for one or two seasons

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:17 pm

Panchitta Marra wrote: Whats your thoughts of Amos at 1, Sam at 6 and Finch at 7, giving Tommy the chance to interchange with Micky Mc.

Well I thought that would be the plan when we signed a half back not a hooker. Deacon was never supposed to be playing this year and IMO only has done so because Finch arrived injured and the club knew about that in advance. Deacon provides valuable cover but surely the plan was for him to retire and us to go with Micky Mac and Tommy at 9?

I am a great fan of Micky Mac but at the moment we don't seem to have a plan B on attack and things only got changed around on Friday when Finch went off for a rest not as a tactical substitution.

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:27 pm

emperorkel wrote:First of all let’s give credit to Wolves, they out played us looked fitter sharper and had more ideas than us.

This is why I said in the other thread this was a worse defeat than losing to Bradford and Quins last season. We were our own worst enemies in those games but there was no intrinsic problem with the team either in attack or defence. To be outclassed the season after winning the GF despite the injuries is a real concern especially given the statistics highlighted by CPW. If we played Wire again this week with a better ref the result would be exactly the same IMO.

It is blindingly obvious to me that we have to get a right side centre, Marsh is not the answer and even Goulding is starting to look as if he has lost interest. The Gleason problem needs sorting quickly and if he is not to play again we need an experienced replacement for one or two seasons

I have said all along we would miss Gleeson and I think we are doing so and I agree if he is to go then the club need him gone and his salary spent on an experienced replacement - if they can find one.

waterside glens · Post by **waterside glens** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:36 pm

cpwigan wrote:
warrior49 wrote:One bad performance and you jump on the bandwagon...GET OVER IT

One I haven't watched the game. I spent Friday at a funeral etc. So think about what you type before you type it.

Two the attack OVER THE COURSE OF THE GAMES SO FAR is not as good as it was. It is not a complaint just a statement based on a simple point for statistic. I don't even have the answer.

Can't see why anyone would argue here our attack has been poor this season. Maybe we'll improve when finch settles in and we get pat and stu back .

weststand-rich · Post by **weststand-rich** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:27 pm

I don't think poor is the right word - maybe compared to the first 10 games of last year we look a bit cobbled together and stuttering rather than the slick and smooth machine that was scoring tries for fun out wide in the early part of the 2010 season.

Injuries are to blame in the main and that combined with Gleeson being mind-numbingly stupid mean it's just a bit rough at present. All teams go through patches like this and Wire came at the wrong time. I don't think we're anywhere near having to adopt damage limitation mindset, but we're just not at our strongest.

Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?

Re: Attack not functioning?