WiganWarriorsFans.com

markill wrote:To illustrate a point about how lateral we played I've picked some numbers out from the game on Friday.

Our 4 props: 30 carries (average 7.5 each)
Their 4 props: 46 (11.5 each)

Our 4 back rowers: 39 (9.75 each)
Their 4 back rowers: 44 (11 each)

Our centres: 27 (13.5 each)
Their centres: 19 (9.5 each)

Whilst Huddersfield's figures per player go down as play goes wider, ours go up.

Obviously this is a little bit reflected in defence.

Our props made 80 tackles between them (team leading 37 made by Mossop, only one missed to add to that, also 10 of the 37 were marker tackles - not putting the effort in now he's leaving obviously eh!?!?!? What a load of bull that is!).

Their props only made 48 total.

I don't think its a case of our props being tired out either from all the defending, because our average yard per carry were Mossop(7), Taylor(6), Dudson(6), Lauaki(4), theirs were Patrick(10), Crabtree(6), Faiumu(6), Kopczak(6). The one who made the least yards per carry for us was the one who made the least tackles too, and most were fairly similar for yards per carry, so it can't be that can it?

So how many tackles did Eric actually make then?

The starting points the props' impact and speed playing he ball. Hence, Flower has become invaluable for his speed, and Taylor because he breaks the line. Without that, you can have plans a to z and never win. When we have that,our structure when everyone is in place works a treat, and will work against any team. When Green and Smith can give the ball short or wide with runners against a defence going backwards we can win any game.
I don't see that we're any different from anyone else in that respect. Let's see what speed our forwards can generate at Wembley and on from there, and work out whether the tactics work.

Been somewhat busy BUT I will happily offer (my view), somewhat extensive but I will be considered.

Opinion 1: the ball is played too laterally to early in the tackle count and we have no go forward because of it. I think cpwigan seems to focus on this one a lot. JUST TO ADD PARTICULARLY IN OUR OWN HALF is my view.

I feel that we are too indiscriminate with our width, we also we seem to stick to our set moves even if they arent on.

The flat short pass wo Farrell agaisnt Hudds was a typical example it didnt work the first 5 times they tried it yet it kept being the move all game and hudds lined him up every single time.

We dont have the depth we did under Madge, madge used to stack 6-7 players in motion all at varying depths and it was almost impossible to defend against with Wane we seem a lot flatter.

Ive no issues with his tatics as of such but i do feel he sets out with "this is how we play" and if it isnt working at half time he goes "didnt work but lets stick with it".

Time after time you see coaches like Smith et al completely change things on the fly once they realise it isnt working and i just dont get the feeling that Wane ever has a plan b

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Ive no issues with his tatics as of such but i do feel he sets out with "this is how we play" and if it isnt working at half time he goes "didnt work but lets stick with it".

THIS

Just an aside; I heard the same complaint v Hudd from several people berating Wigan / Green for hitting the lead runner and not letting the ball go. HOWEVER; Right OR Wrong I think it was a ploy Wigan were employing in their game plan, which may have been developed in training prior to Sam T pulling out.

This season as the 2nd man play becomes old school teams are now far better at defending it by compressing in towards the 2 runners. Hudds go hunting interceptions for example particularly Cudjoe. Goulding repeatedly took the tackle before it was right to feed to Charnley and he went on to score. Farrell was hit on the lead run quite frequently and it never paid off, perhaps because no Sam T = defenders not watching for him and concentrating upon their runners.

The Charnley try showed that sometimes you need to run plays a few times taking tackles BEFORE changing tact. In this day and age of 24/7 video analysis you need VARIATION, even better you need variations of the same set play. Show opponents what they think is going to happen BUT adjust the play in a way the opposition are not expecting / are not primed for.

Any strategy needs to evolve because it is far easier to defend a strategy that you see every match and become familiar with. Cas ran a beauty v us at the DW; for all intents and purposes it looked the same old 2nd man play BUT Chase pivoted and went back infield whilst the 2nd man recipients acted as decoys. In the NRL they now very often seem to pop short inside passes on what for all intents and purposes look and start like 2nd man plays.

Wigan's predictiability COULD / CAN become a weapon is we start developing alternative plays from the same starting point.

cpwigan wrote:Been somewhat busy BUT I will happily offer (my view), somewhat extensive but I will be considered.

Opinion 1: the ball is played too laterally to early in the tackle count and we have no go forward because of it. I think cpwigan seems to focus on this one a lot. JUST TO ADD PARTICULARLY IN OUR OWN HALF is my view.

I agree. If we do the basics well then we are capable of beating any team, after all it's a simple game. We need better ball control and more direct and harder running from the forwards especially in our own half; support the man with the ball to create doubt in the opposition's mind; greater line speed in defence to cut down the oppositions options (a tactic used well by Wire against Hudds); more scoots from dummy half; the dummy half or first receiver taking a step forward before passing to create go forward; a better kicking game (possibly kicking earlier in the tackle count); better kick chase; tighter defence around dummy half; dummy runners. This is what I would expect of a school team!

I have been critical of our halves over the last 7/8 weeks but to be fair they have not had a good platform to work from. They are continually being asked to kick from deep, they have had no room to play in or good field position and they don't have the option of taking on a tiring pack.

Waney has plenty to fix, over the next couple of weeks, if we are to be happy bunnies at Wembley. Hull are not in our class but they will be victorious unless we do the basics better than they do. Warrington failed to do so and paid the price, a busted HKR were softened up down the middle and later paid the price.

I suggest that Waney reintroduces the Madge approach, but then again will he eat humble pie! He could become the most successful Wigan coach in recent times or an also ran.

Mike wrote: Opinion 1: the ball is played too laterally to early in the tackle count and we have no go forward because of it. I think cpwigan seems to focus on this one a lot.

I don't think this is quite right. It's when this happens early in the tackle count in our own half particularly around our own 20m line it's a problem. It's very risky.

Opinion 2: the ball is just run straight up the middle all the time and we have no go forward because of it. This seems to be what DaveO is saying a lot.

I was saying it a lot after the Hudds game because that is what happened. It wouldn't be an issue if it was the right thing to do but it clearly wasn't but we kept doing it.

Wire didn't just charge up the middle to beat Hudds but scooted and ran round the big forwards or at least tried to to make them move laterally. If Wane had watched a video of that game there it was on a plate what tactic to employ when play was in the middle.

The other thing is the two options aren't mutually exclusive. Not doing option 1 shouldn't mean we do option 2 if it won't work (as it didn't v Hudds).

We may do option 2 more when Sam doesn't play as option 1 only has a chance of working when he does.

[quote="East Stand Faithful]So how many tackles did Eric actually make then?[/quote]

13

We might think otherwise BUT sport at the top level is damn difficult. In ANY sport it is easier to defend than attack. Match a good defence v a good attack and I will take the good defence 99 times out of a 100 to win.

In RL terms it is slightly more complex / difficult than say football for example. In RL, field position and possession (important in any team sport) are the key determinants IMO of who wins / loses. You do get games that dispel that belief BUT if you take 50 / 100 / 1000 games they will be the minority.

At a high level, perhaps any level, it is far easier to defend in RL in the opposition 20 / at the very least their half. Logically and stating the obvious, the worst place to defend is your own try line / your own half. Two teams playing well tend to cancel each other out 'getting in the arm wrestle so to speak'. IMO it can become akin to RL tennis making your ground, good kick and chase; opponents catch the kick and repeat the process UNTIL somebody makes a mistake / cracks. I personally think Wigan under Wane try to fly in the face of this most basic 'law' of RL.

You have to concentrate on set completion and territorial gain in your own half :excl:

(To be continued)