Re: Fullback Centre and Prop a...

[Shevi 4 life]

we aint signing anybody !

[the grinch]

lets try and learn from past experience! if we need a centre then buy a centre. dont mess around with the team just because someone once had a go in that position.wigan beat every team at least once last season the team had found form at last lets not make anymore changes than we have to.

[WiganWarrior]

I think he needs to stay at fullback and prob solved we dont need one bringing in

we need a centre who could cover fullback

and a prop

for 140k i think we could get a decent couple of players, even if its short term 1/2 year deals for 30/31 year olds

[DaveO]

WiganWarrior posted:
I think he needs to stay at fullback and prob solved we dont need one bringing in

Yes we do. What people seem to be forgetting is we simply do not have enough senior players in the squad. We also need a centre.

If we bring in a full back that means should the new full back get injured Richards can cover as he has done this season when Withers retired and Ashton left. Colbon would then come in to replace Richards on the wing (again as he did this season).

We need a new centre for similar reasons. If Bailey or Goulding gets injured who plays centre? If we got an experienced centre in Goulding could do as this year and come in from the bench to gain more experience yet he is there to provide cover if either Bailey or "new centre" is injured.

So signing just two players improves the team. It gives us a bit of much needed depth, it allows Richard to revert to the wing where he is more effective and it lets Goulding have another year as part of the first 17 not the first 13.

As to the prop situation, yes I'd like to see another but Coley will have do that job and be an out and out prop and not try and be Fletcher MkII.

Now some may say that isn't fair on the likes of Colbon. Well that is just tough. Do you want to be nice to players or do you want a better team? There is no room for sentiment in professional sport.

Dave

[andybailey147]

pat r is fine at fullback, its a centre needed most of all!

[DaveO]

andybailey147 posted:
pat r is fine at fullback, its a centre needed most of all!

There is a difference between being fine and beting as good at the job of full back compared to Hodgson who we were linked with.

And as I said, who plays there if he gets injured? We have no cover.

People need to look at the squad as a whole not just consider individuals or individual positions.

We have cover in the forwards for both front row, hooker and second row. We have no cover at half back (like this season) and we have no cover at centre, winger or full back.

A centre and a full back would mean we had 7 players covering 5 positions as opposed to just 5. If Richards was playing wing and got injured, Colbon comes in. If "new fullback" is injured Richards goes to full back, Colbon in on the wing.

If either centre is injured, Goulding comes into the starting 13 and we put an U21 player on the bench. If we don't get a centre then Goulding would already be in the 13 and so if him or Bailey were injured we would have to bring an U21 into the 13.

Seems obvious ot me the addition of a centre and a full back will give Nobby much greater flexibility on the 3/4 line to deal with injuries.

It will also have another desirable effect - competition for places. At the moment there isn't any.

Dave

[andybailey147]

if it was down to me i would have a good centre any day of the week!

[gpartin]

pieater-alex posted:

but the possibility he wasn't at all comfortable at centre also lead to the loss in confidence.

He looked comfortable for Wests when he played centre , did he not play the final at centre?

you don't just go from world ebater at wests, winning the nrl grand final to being poor.

Thing is though Pat was not a world beater at Wests I think you've gone a little over the top , otherwise why would they let him go? He was a good player not a world beater.

Winning the grand final has nothing to do with his loss of form.

if this was the case with the team being poor then he'd have shone above the rest and he didn't

Afraid I have to disagree you seem to have this mentality that Richards is a world beater he's not he was decent player in Aus and is a decent player in England. Hence why he didn't shine.

Barrett on the other hand is a world beater and would of shone in that team. There is a difference.

he wasn't comfortable at centre, and it shows when he was so delighted when noble came and moved him onto the wing. says it all really.

It's not a contest let's see who can keep Richards the happiest (although jadehateslongy might think so ) I don't give 2 $h!Ts where Richards wants to play if he is good enough to the job at centre which I believe he is then he does it.

leave him at FB, get a centre in, ease goulding in, coming on as a replacement for bailey for when he moves into the pack. this then allows coley to move to prop (prop problem solved) and bailey hock hansen battle for second row positions. and we'd also have a great strike centre alongside either colbon or calders.

Your theory would work if we signed a centre.

blame turf.

Ban him!

Are you Dave in disguise? Are you Dave in dusguise

[fitzy]

I think a cheap fb option worth looking at is grose

[Dicknterry]

God posted:
Ive said it once and i will say it again if we are desperate for centers put Danny Hill in at center or Hock, many mediocure second rowers and also good second rowers ended up very good centers.

Why cant we do the same again.

Gene Miles.
Kieth Senior.
Ryan Atkins.
Jason Demitriu.
Chris Nero.
Phil Lowe.(Hull KR.)

Etc,Etc

Have all played center very well and are/were second rowers.

IMO Danny Hill has done nothing wrong at all he just needs more game time.

But our biggest priority is a Prop then a center.

Danny Hill in at centre.....is your mum your dad??