Wigan in talks to keep Green

[southportcdm]

Does anybody know when a team last won or made a serious challenge for the super league with a 20 year old half back playing the majority of games? I think that it's a big ask and we have to find a way of keeping Green for another season whilst keeping all the youngsters happy. This should be possible at a well run club where the players are made to realise that it's in their best interests to be patient. If Blake insists on three seasons then we should say no. The tricky one is if he wants two more seasons.

[Panchitta Marra]

I'm sure they look at the big picture when reviewing contracts. Can't wait to see how DaveO works his Hanson argument into this thread though!:)

Oh that is easy

In a nutshell we sold a player we need and are negotiating to keep a player we don't.

We have two injuries in the back row, Lockers and Faz and we have gone from a wealth of talent there to hoping we can clone Bateman.

With the half backs we already have three players who look with this season under their belt they could take over so in contrast Green isn't vital.

Ignoring the contrast with the back row for the moment I did post some time ago I thought the club had given both Green and Smith two year deals as part of a clear plan of progression that would see the young half backs ready to take over when Smith and Green's contracts expired.

None other than Whelly Warrior agreed with this idea.

I'd be surprised if Green wants anything shorter than three years and if he gets it we will lose one of the younger players IMO and from what I have seen of those I don't think he is worth it.

As with the o/p I think he is a solid player who occasionally does something good but is not enough of a threat enough of the time. His mere presence does not worry anyone whereas a top 6 has the opposition guessing.

If the plan was to have him here just for two years while the kids matured and that plan has changed I'd love to know why because I don't think it can be due to his quality as a player.

Maybe we are about to lose one or more of the young players and keeping Green will be put forward in a similar way to recruiting Bowen was used to sugar the bitter pill of losing Sam? I sincerely hope I am wrong with that notion.

Or if Wane wants to use Hampshire as Bowen's replacement I think this will prove a mistake. I think we would be far better off letting Green go, having Hampshire at 6 and recruiting a full back (Kevin Locke would have been ideal and I am gobsmacked we didn't use our "special relationship" with the NZW to sign him ) or even getting Sargenson up to speed there (he won't make a centre IMO but might do well at 1).

I follow what you say.
Rocky has been as good as any 6 coming through the Wigan youth culture with the potential to be the best 6 in SL (certainly as British grown).
Rocky is not a full back and needs to be given full opportunity at 6 and if that means Green departing then as far as I am concerned, off green goes.
I agree wholeheartedly that Dan is not a centre to which I said in a previous post he is a winger come full back.
If Wigan allow Hampshire to leave using Green as a1st choice I will consider this as a massive negative move.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Could green play 9? He has decent passing and is pretty solid in defence. Logan seems not to be in future plans could he back up mickey mac?

[DaveO]

Does anybody know when a team last won or made a serious challenge for the super league with a 20 year old half back playing the majority of games? I think that it's a big ask and we have to find a way of keeping Green for another season whilst keeping all the youngsters happy. This should be possible at a well run club where the players are made to realise that it's in their best interests to be patient. If Blake insists on three seasons then we should say no. The tricky one is if he wants two more seasons.

I doubt Green will want a one year contract at his age. I think the youngsters would have to be patient for two or three years, probably three IMO and we won't be able to ask that. I can forsee another Sean Long scenario if we aren't careful.

As to winning SL with a young half back do you really think Green is the difference between that kind of success and failure given we have sold or lost so many established players and are already playing players such as Bateman more than was anticipated out of necessity? We are already rebuilding to the extent unless the 1st choice 13 is available I don't think we will be in with a chance to win a big game v the better sides unless they suffer the kind of injury crisis we have now. I don't see Green as key one way or the other.

I'd give Smith a new deal and slot Hampshire in at at 6 and address the full back issue with Sarge or a recruit rather than try and keep Hampshire to play at 1 as I just don't think he will make it there long term.

[DaveO]

(On Hansen, if we'd kept him we wouldn't have signed bateman, so we would surely be roughly where we are now, but with an older player with fewer strings to their bow?)

Give over. How do you come to that conclusion? Wane's stated intention with Bateman was not to play him that much this season. That plan went out of the window when he realised Clubb can't play in the back row anymore and because Hansen has gone he has no choice but to play Bateman as first choice alongside Faz and Lockers.

Two of those three are currently injured and so we are up the creek without a paddle in the back row. It's about time people stopped making excuses for the club selling Hansen and admitted it was a mistake.

[Kaii]

Has no choice but go play Bateman?

Are you joking, Bateman he been one of the highlights of the season alongside the ginger pearl. Even if Hanson was still here he would of been dropped for John who's a far superior player in every way.

You have no point Dave, you just love to moan

[Wigan_forever1985]

Has no choice but go play Bateman?

Are you joking, Bateman he been one of the highlights of the season alongside the ginger pearl. Even if Hanson was still here he would of been dropped for John who's a far superior player in every way.

You have no point Dave, you just love to moan

I think what DaveO is referring to is not whether or not we "should" be playing bateman but the fact that Wane at the start of the season stated that he wouldn't play him that much regardless of how well he played. However his hand has been forced and Bateman is playing week in week out. Now we as fans have no issue as Bateman is tearing it up but the fact this goes directly against the statement made by Wane at the start of the season means that something hasn't gone to plan

in fact I have found one of his quotes;

We intend to strip him down and build him back up, educating him on preparing his body for top grade Rugby League along the way. He has played a lot of Rugby at a young age and has taken a few bangs. We will be slow and thorough in his development and will not rush or pressure him. Our succession plan for the back row already includes, O'Loughlin, Hansen, Farrell, Hughes, Burke, Hopkins, Clubb and now Bateman and there will be great competition for selection- a very healthy situation for Wigan."

So if you look at Wanes "succession plan"

Lockers (injured a lot nowadays)

Hansen (gone)

Farrell (rarely injured but is at present)

Hughes (development has stifled a little caught between centre and 2nd row)

Burke (injured?)

Hopkins (clearly a failed experiement)

Clubb (not cut out for 2nd row anymore much more suited to prop)

[Wiganer Ted]

Hampshire will get more games at fb than 6.
I do think he's better off there for now. Surely not a chance of the club allowing him to leave? Same with Williams, Powell, Burgess.

As for Waney's succession plans, we have more quality strength in depth than any other club. We are the double winners and our U19s have won the last 5 out of 6 GF's.
Far too many names to list who are ready for SL games.

[sheepsteeth]

It appears we're going to end up with another Sam is a 6 not a fullback debate.

It would appear obvious to me that Rocky has been earmarked as our FB going forward. We've signed bowen for a year I can only assume to give Rocky a bit longer to develop.

With regards to green If we're going to sign him up it indicates to me Wane doesn't think the youngsters have developed quite as quickly as they thought.

I also worry that this signing might indicate that Lockers might be near the end. I think Powell or Williams in for Green next year is fine if Lockers is still about, If he can't go next year then losing him, Green and probably Bowen is an awful lot of experience in one go.

[Panchitta Marra]

It appears we're going to end up with another Sam is a 6 not a fullback debate.

It would appear obvious to me that Rocky has been earmarked as our FB going forward. We've signed bowen for a year I can only assume to give Rocky a bit longer to develop.

With regards to green If we're going to sign him up it indicates to me Wane doesn't think the youngsters have developed quite as quickly as they thought.

I also worry that this signing might indicate that Lockers might be near the end. I think Powell or Williams in for Green next year is fine if Lockers is still about, If he can't go next year then losing him, Green and probably Bowen is an awful lot of experience in one go.

On the fullback/stand off debate regarding tomkins who was their idol, my teenage girls have commented on numerous occasions how easy matty bowen makes catching a high ball look good and correct compared to tomkins.
I dare say Ryan Hampshire wont be at ease catching the more difficult high balls too, but I guess only time will tell.
Is a full back a true full back if he struggles to catch a ball ?