Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
DaveO
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by DaveO »

cherry.pie wrote:And I don't know whether Richards or Charnley would have caught them. They certainly weren't straightforward and were similar to the one Tomkins struggled with in the Challenge Cup and similar to ones that Amos Roberts once struggled with in a game against Huddersfield when Danny Brough was putting up some difficult kicks. It's not like Charnley has always been error free either. The bottom line is Richards and Charnley rarely face kicks as difficult as those. They almost always face angled kicks.
The point you are missing is that with Richards playing FB it is highly unlikely Sinfield would have targeted him with bombs in the first place.

It would have been one less tactic in his armoury because I am certain he has far more respect for Richards ability under a bomb than you appear to have.

Wane playing Murphy was like a red rag to a bull. It was a huge mistake.

Watch how Murphy tries to catch and tell me in all seriousness you would expect Pat do to that?

Also, you do realise you are casting doubt on the ability of other players in order to justify Wane's selection of Murphy here don't you? Or at least to make the case it made little difference. That is not a good way to formulate an argument when the players are as good as Pat under bomb.
DaveO
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by DaveO »

TSB wrote:Shaun has been brave enough to start the youngsters who are going to be our future stars for many years to come. We have some fantastic prospects coming thru the ranks. Lets be fair when Madge arrived we were all gobsmacked that we won any thing in the first season we were meant to build for the future. unfortunately we won the Grand final in our first season and went on to win the challenge cup in the second IMO very lucky.
It is not brave to give a youngster his second SL outing in play off semi-final. it is stupid.

As to "Unfortunately" we won the grand final in our first season and the CC in his second. What on earth are you saying!? If we hand't won those we would have a league leaders trophy and nowt else. Are you mad?
Did take it why not, but was looking thru rose tinted glasses.we were learning Madge left. Shaun took over not really a bad season considered.
Madge took over Noble's side and improved it. It was not a fluke we won the trophies. Wane took over Madge's side and it has gone backwards. Those are the facts.
Rugby league as a sport is in this country looking as though it can go to the wall unless we all get behind it. Lets celebrate a great game tonight 13 -12 so close but yet so far away. WELL DONE LEEDS.
Given we have the best crowds in the league we clearly are behind it. What that has to do with Wane screwing it up I am not sure.
DaveO
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by DaveO »

cherry.pie wrote: My main point is that Murphy at fullback in my opinion wasn't a huge problem. The problem was the inability of the defence to put any sort of pressure on Sinfield when it was blindingly obvious that he would try spiral bombs regardless of who was at fullback.
I think you are wrong here in that as I said who was at full back will have dictated Sinfields tactics. I don't think you can take it as read he would have played the game the same way with Pat there. The irony is given Sam is not the best under a high ball either the one positive about him being out would have been Richards ability in this area.
Half decent pressuring of the kicker would have prevented the kicks from going up and Murphy would have been comfortable. Let a top quality kicker have all the time he wants and he's going to trouble any fullback in the world.
As a generalisation that is true but we aren't generalising. We are comparing Murphy to Richards in this game and speculating if Richards would have dealt with these kicks better. I think he would have and I also think he would have less to deal with.
It's a remarkably simple tactic and one that Warrington used to good effect in the challenge cup semi final and there's absolutely no excuse for Wigan to have allowed Sinfield to put in so many excellent kicks throughout the game when he's the only player in the side to actually have a dangerous kicking game.
That doesn't matter if they are dealt with.
The ifs and buts and maybe's around Murphy's selection are largely irrelevant, the team failed in a basic area of the game before Murphy had to deal with any kicks and had they done what you would expect of any team there wouldn't be an issue.
No. His selection is only irrelevant if you think it would have made no difference if a different player had been picked at full back instead. That is not the case in my opinion. We would have been better with Pat at full back than Murphy.
The one reason why that might lead back to the selection issue is that we've been awful at pressuring the kicker throughout the season; possibly the worst in the league for that and perhaps there was enough warning for Shaun Wane to think that no matter what happened the team just wasn't going to be able to do that and it would leave the fullback exposed.
In which case picking a rookie at FB was nuts. But he clearly didn't recognise that problem anyway.

I think Wane has some explaining to do over picking Murphy at full back regardless of how we pressure the kicker or if Pat would have been better.

Picking a player who has played one SL game for a play off semi final in any position is highly questionable. It really is the wrong sort of game to be doing this when he could have had more experienced players out there.

Panchitta Marra
Posts: 6134
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:24 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by Panchitta Marra »

Jack Murphy should never have been put in this position.
With Pat at Full Back, Thornley and Charnley on the wings, Sinfield has to ask himself where is he going to kick the ball to reap a mistake.
Pat, Josh and Iain are excellent at catching the ball and Sinfield just loves kicking it. His threat is therefore reduced dramatically with the option of good return.
With Jack at Full back it was the easy option for Sinfield and sadly for Jack it showed. Not Jack's fault as he shouldnt have been put there in the first place.
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by cpwigan »

Cherry even if Waney was going to select a youngster HE CLEARLY did not select ON MERIT. Russell was the form player! v Leeds he was excellent, he was good enough to be selected internationally against Aus yet Waney opts for Murphy who dropped two bombs in the second half and nearly cost us the game and then did. Do you honestly think Jack Murphy is the replacement for Sam T when he leaves in 2 seasons time?

Richards or Charnley should have been at FB!!
OJ
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:19 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by OJ »

Jack did ok and almost got off to the dream start, certainly doesn't deserve any criticism from any of us and didn't deserve the roasting he seemed to get off Finch when he didn't get to the 40 -20 in time - it wasn't for the want of trying. Was just a shame he hadn't had more game time in the first team squad before last night and that is something that needs rectifying next season for all our young players - drip freed them into the squad so that all positions are covered at any one time
Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.











ian.birchall
Posts: 3753
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:42 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by ian.birchall »

thegimble wrote:


The 2 starting props were awful and Lima was the worst player on the pitch tonight. Made little yards and had no impact on the game. Mossop improved second half. But when the gong gets tough Lima goes awol.
I have been saying for weeks that Lima has been playing with 1 eye on Souths ever since he defected, next season we will have lots of inexperienced props, it is a serious mistake to let Fielden go.
Regarder une fille en bikini, c'est comme avoir un revolver chargé sur sa table:
Il n'y a rien de mal a ça mais il est difficile de penser à autre chose.


Now Europe is just for holidays.
ian.birchall
Posts: 3753
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:42 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by ian.birchall »

DaveO wrote:[
Madge took over Noble's side and improved it.
That wasn't difficult, I could have done that and I am sure you could have done so as well Dave.
Regarder une fille en bikini, c'est comme avoir un revolver chargé sur sa table:
Il n'y a rien de mal a ça mais il est difficile de penser à autre chose.


Now Europe is just for holidays.
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by cpwigan »

cherry.pie wrote:
cpwigan wrote:Cherry even if Waney was going to select a youngster HE CLEARLY did not select ON MERIT. Russell was the form player! v Leeds he was excellent, he was good enough to be selected internationally against Aus yet Waney opts for Murphy who dropped two bombs in the second half and nearly cost us the game and then did. Do you honestly think Jack Murphy is the replacement for Sam T when he leaves in 2 seasons time?

Richards or Charnley should have been at FB!!
No I don't. I think Murphy will be a solid and dependable SL player but nothing more. However Russell clearly isn't the replacement for Tomkins at this moment in time either.

Form is not who stands out in one game, particularly when you play that game in a different position. I'm sorry but if you think Russell would have been safer defensively you're an idiot. He's had several Super League opportunities where he's proven categorically that he isn't anywhere near good enough defensively at this moment in time.

The argument that Richards or Charnley should have been at fullback I understand and it's probably true. The idea that Russell should have been picked at fullback ahead of Murphy is ridiculous considering the reason he wasn't playing fullback for the under 20's in the first place is because HIS DEFENCE WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH!
Nothing idiotic Cherry in my argument thankyou. Far from it. Jack Murphy is a trier nothing more nothing less. He was so good he was shunted on the win week in week out ONLY because he could place kick. He has zero rep honours.

Matty Russell has international rep honours and has fielded bombs in huge games like the Ashes, he has played several SL games this season. He is so bad that he is now leaving Wigan to play in Australia for the Gold Coast Titans. Sure he could have made mistakes last night just like Jack BUT IMO he offers far more in attack and was in form whereas Jack was not.

If one junior is deemed international quality, wanted by other SL clubs, now signed by an Australian NRL club and yet he is ousted by a thoroughly decent nice boy in Jack then that tells me the idiots are those who selected Jack over Matty, Jack over Pat or Charnley in such a big game.

Our selection policy seems to be who is nice and kisses Waneys ass the most. Does that produce winners?

Who has blooded youngsters more / better in 2012? Wire? Leeds? Saints? or Wigan? IMO we have not been developing players properly for 2 seaSons and that includes Madges last one.
Suzieb
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:35 pm

Re: Should Jack Murphy have been put under so much pressure?

Post by Suzieb »

Totaly agree to much responsibilty for Jack Mr Wane got it wrong again Pat should of played there and Ian Thornley on the wing
Post Reply