WiganWarriorsFans.com

old hooker wrote:If Fielden and Prescott are as good as some on here are saying,why are Morley,Peacock ,Graham,Crabtree,Carvell,Mcarthy Scarsbrook,Watts,Burgess(Luke) etc mentioned in front of them?Considering most other props are either over the hill or not eligible that shows how good they are.Fielden is a donkey and Prescott is no better now than he was 3 seasons ago.

In front of them? I assume you mean for International selection? Doesn't Prescott play for Ireland? I'm not sure either are as bad as you say otherwise we would not be very successful. Or is Coley that good he does the work of 3 or 4 props?

I think with how far we've come so far that Maguire knows what he's doing with Feka, if Feka doesn't fit in with his plans so be it.

We've seen with the English World Cup farce what happens when a team is selected on how high profile an individual is rather than what's best for the team as a whole.

Trust Maguire, he's not let us down so far.

Fielden has ben our best prop this year, not agressive perhaps as Coley, but giving away far fewer penalties and making fewer errors.

El Bobbers wrote:

DaveO wrote:I think it is a failing on Madge's part not to work out how to use Feka and/or get him to be the player he wants.

What makes you think he hasn't tried?

The lack of game time all season he has given him and not playing him in a game like last night when he was quoted as saying this was his opportunity to state his case for a new deal.

Pryce was given more back to back games to prove himself yet Madge has left Feka out and done things like pick Tuson and not play him in a match or like last night go with two props only.

What happens if he does play next week? Is he going to be expected to perform having had not first team the week before?

Feka looks much fitter than previous seasons but he is still a liability in defence which is what MM will focus on the most. If Feka doesn't suit the teams style then tough, he has to go.

He may well be gone next season but this he is one of our 25 senior players and he is not as bad as people are making out IMO.

I slagged Noble off doe not using his squad when he was here and while Madge is far better in that respect I don't agree with playing only two recognised props when we have another like Feka around. His defence may not be top notch but we won't win the GF if when either Coley or Fielden are missing we don't play Feka.

Dave

Don't get me wrong, I love watching Feka play but if he doen't suit MM's tactics or style why would he pick him? If he is not happy with Fekas shortcomings and feels they outweigh his positives then he will not pick him.

I don't think Tuson or Farrell are keeping Feka out and you can make a case for playing younger players for next seasons benefit easily enough in several positions. By that argument Riddell who is leaving ought not to get another game.

He is another player who can't play a full game (or should I say long enough)and to me looks no more of a Madge type player than Feka. He can do some good stuff but McIllorum is far more consistent.

I have also no idea why Pryce got such a good run in the side either. There are apparently backs queuing up for a 1st team place and I don't know what Goulding did to get dropped.

If we were not in with a chance of getting to the GF taking this season as a training exercise so ignoring Feka might be OK. But the expectations have been set higher with how well we have done so far. So Madge needs to pick winning teams (which is why Riddell gets to play) not use this season as preparation for next. He lost that luxury due to how well we have done.

Players like Tuscon and Mossop are not IMO ready for playing prop week in week out and certainly not in the play-offs. Feka is physically mature (understatement) and more experienced. Les Cats are bottom for a reason and Salford offered nothing up front. Teams like Saints, Wire and Leeds are a different proposition and with Coley out I'd be very surprised to see us win next week if we have a front row of Fielden, Prescott and Mossop. The trouble is bringing Feka in probably won't work either given how little he has played. His confidence must be affected and his lack of game time is no preparation for such a tough game.

We have got th where we are with Fielden abd Coley playing well but I think we are too inexperienced and too lightweight when one of them is missing.

I have no idea why Feka gets so little game time compared to certain other players and I think he is certainly one player who would have benefited from a decent run in the side. Madge does not seem to have any patience with him but the trouble is this means we rely on Coley and Fielden.

Because Feka is out of the picture and IMO probably not capable now of getting back into it then if we lose either Fielden or Coley to injury or suspension that will screw our playoff hopes. That is a major reason why it was IMO in the teams interest that Madge didn't give up on Feka which he seemingly has.

Dave

Spot on. Having Feka on makes everyone else have to do more work not less. Just watched Wigan v Rovers from early in the season. He was on 13 minutes but was blowing after about 7 and every time its the last tackle he strolls up field before everyone else because he is not capable of chasing the kick. In an ideal world I think we need 4 props but with players like Joel, Hansen and Mossop who are capable of making really hard yards we're better off without Feka because his inclusion is inevitably at the expense of another player who can get through far more work load than someone who is totally knackered after no more than 4 drives on a good day.

cherry.pie wrote:Do you really think Feka would be anywhere near good enough to replace Fielden or Coley without any problems?

Do you think a front row of Mossop, Fielden and Precott is good enough? I don't.

The point I am making is because Madge gave up on Feka we are now in a position where he probably isn't good enough to replace either of those two.

You can make the case of why he isn't good enough but that is not the point. Madge and the coachhing team should have got him doing what they wanted or worked out systems to play to his strengths.

Feka only became a lardy boy in 2009. Prior to that fans were quite happy with him in the most part and had no problem with him coming on when used properly. We also used to go with four props and it's only fairly recently we seemed to stop doing that which doesn't work in his favour.

For me, Feka gets so little game time because if he plays for long spells he becomes a liability. It's been the case under Noble (who actually had a habit of leaving him on for too long which left us weak in defence) and it seems to be the case under Maguire too.

I do agree with your point about the Warrington game with regards that a side with 4 props; Fielden, Prescott, Feka and Mossop looks much stronger, but in such a tight game there is also the risk that one weak link can be the difference between winning and losing.
In the semi final when Monaghan targeted Feka, in just a few minutes the game was lost because Monaghan had the intelligence to target our weak link.

He is their most dangerous player and it's up to us (and Feka) to counteract that. Monaghan is clever enough to exploit other players weaknesses if not Feka and we did OK against him last time out.

So in that respect, there would certainly be a reason for Madge to opt for another player rather than Feka, despite the fact he's a bigger player and a good metre maker.

Only of you think we are powerless to come up with tactics to contract the threat Monaghan poses when Feka is on the pitch. In fact knowing he will most likely run at Feka is something to be used to our advantage.

Dave

The feeling I get from the way Madge has his team tactics set up is that he's moving us away from the "big prop" concept, in favour of mobility, speed off the line and speed getting set in defence. All of the above work against Feca, and in favour of Mossop, Prescott, Tuson, Davies & co.

In attack, most of our metres gained come from getting the ball wide early, into the hands of our 2nd rows & centres, rather than the 4 or 5 prop drives favoured by most teams. Not only is it more effective, it makes for a better spectacle for the fans.

In defence, we work on getting set early, even with three in the tackle, and moving up fast (one thing that annoyed me about Nobby was the "two metres and hold" idea), so that even if their props make good yards after contact, the first contact is further back.

El Bobbers wrote:

old hooker wrote:If Fielden and Prescott are as good as some on here are saying,why are Morley,Peacock ,Graham,Crabtree,Carvell,Mcarthy Scarsbrook,Watts,Burgess(Luke) etc mentioned in front of them?Considering most other props are either over the hill or not eligible that shows how good they are.Fielden is a donkey and Prescott is no better now than he was 3 seasons ago.

In front of them? I assume you mean for International selection? Doesn't Prescott play for Ireland? I'm not sure either are as bad as you say otherwise we would not be very successful. Or is Coley that good he does the work of 3 or 4 props?

Yes i do mean international selection,yes Prescott does play for Ireland because he is well aware that he will never be good enough to play for England.No Coley is not that good,but he is our best prop.I have said and will repeat that we have a very good side but the props let us down,i do not think we will win the GF this year but i hope i am wrong.Just to add insult to injury on top of the list i gave of props who are considered for England before ours are Scruton whi is injured and even thug Bailey has been suggested that he may be on the fringe of selection
if he continues to play well.I know everyone is entitled to an opinion and i respect that,i do not call people idiots or stupid because they do not agree with me (as many do on this site)but i can not for the life of me understand why anyone can support Fielden who cost us a fortune to buy,is on a huge wage and has delivered very little