Widnes v Wigan

[Mike]

I remember Saints getting into trouble for fielding a weakened team before the betting scandal broke - is that right? I wonder why the RFL haven't commented on our selection for this match? Maybe someone wanting Widnes to get their first win as it is good for the game?

[Kittwazzer]

Can't see it somehow. Any bets on Widnes to win would surely stick out like a sore thumb?

[doc]

The announcing of the squads a few days before matches was a result of Long and Gleeson scandal. If the bookies are stupid enough to give silly odds prior to the squads being announced that's their own fault.

[DaveO]

I remember Saints getting into trouble for fielding a weakened team before the betting scandal broke - is that right? I wonder why the RFL haven't commented on our selection for this match?

Saints did get into trouble and the RFL tried to find them £25K but had to back down because they didn't realise they had rewritten their own rules.

It used to be you had to field your strongest side at all times. The idea of the 19 man squads and naming the team early in the weak was a consequence of what Saints did. The idea being the fans could see who was going to play and would not turn up expecting the first team and get a reserve side on the pitch. As Widnes v Wigan proved it does not really work.

I wonder why the RFL haven't commented on our selection for this match?

That is because as I said above the rules on the "stongest side" were rewritten some time ago and before Saints under Millward pulled that stunt v Bradford.

The current rules state you have to field players out of your first team squad of 25 every week. So you can pick any combination of players you like from that 25 and you comply with the rule and that is deemed as complying with the notion that this does not allow deliberately weak sides to be played. The 25 are all deemed first team player standard by the RFL because you picked them to be in the 25.

If you want to field players outside that 25 you can only do so if you can give the RFL written medical evidence of the need to do so. I would suggest that is pretty easy to do with a compliant club doctor and I can't see how the RFL would be able to challenge it anyway.

I looked this up in the operational rules and the above is the gist of it but I am not sure how this works in giving débuts to players outside the 25 (as opposed to having them cover injures). I do know clubs are limited in that respect anyway because once players start playing qualifying games they start to count on the salary cap and there is only £50K available to pay players outside of the 25 first team squad. (Players who do not feature in SL or appear in the 25 man 1st team squad do no count on the cap so in theory we could pay them what we liked).

[butt monkey]

Someone from work placed a £50 bet on Widnes, now enjoying the benefits of over £3000

[TrueBlueWarrior]

Someone from work placed a £50 bet on Widnes, now enjoying the benefits of over £3000

You don't work with SW do you BM?

[Kittwazzer]

Someone from work placed a £50 bet on Widnes, now enjoying the benefits of over £3000

BM. Are you a psychiatric nurse and was that 'someone' a patient?

[butt monkey]

Someone from work placed a £50 bet on Widnes, now enjoying the benefits of over £3000

BM. Are you a psychiatric nurse and was that 'someone' a patient?

Put it this way, the last time Wigan were so hot to win a game was the Challenge Cup final v Sheffield Eagles........ and no one needs reminding what happened there.

It's also a pretty easy gamble considering it's a two horse race so the gamble is always worth a punt at those ridiculous odds

[Mike]

Maybe there is another reason for the team selection and we are not giving Wane enough credit...

Widnes have a very unusual playing surface that few teams have so far played on. Losing our key players for one match is bad enough as we found out, but imagine if we'd picked up injuries to l=those players that kept them out for a few months - because of the pitch. We would certainly drop more league points throughout the year than without Sam and Lockers than just these two if they were not available.

Personally I don't buy into the fact that the widnes pitch is fundamentally more dangerous than a grass one, but perhaps being cautious until more matches have been played on it is a good strategy? Protect our key players from potential harm until the stats show the pitch is fine.

Also, this is the sort of reasoning that Wane couldn't talk about to the media. If he did he would bring a lot of pressure from the RFL onto himself, which perhaps is why he is so recultant to admit a mistake?

Anyone think this is plausable?

[cpwigan]

Maybe there is another reason for the team selection and we are not giving Wane enough credit...

Widnes have a very unusual playing surface that few teams have so far played on. Losing our key players for one match is bad enough as we found out, but imagine if we'd picked up injuries to l=those players that kept them out for a few months - because of the pitch. We would certainly drop more league points throughout the year than without Sam and Lockers than just these two if they were not available.

Personally I don't buy into the fact that the widnes pitch is fundamentally more dangerous than a grass one, but perhaps being cautious until more matches have been played on it is a good strategy? Protect our key players from potential harm until the stats show the pitch is fine.

Also, this is the sort of reasoning that Wane couldn't talk about to the media. If he did he would bring a lot of pressure from the RFL onto himself, which perhaps is why he is so recultant to admit a mistake?

Anyone think this is plausable?

I do not think the new pitch causes more injuries. However, I do think it may exacerbate knock / minor injuries perhaps.

However, in the case of our game this could not be so. The decision to omit 5 players was taken well in advance and the actual players rested changed on a daily basis with some that played being down as rested 24 / 48 hours earlier.