A site for fans of Wigan Warriors RLFC. News, views, statistics, profiles and more all contributed by supporters of Wigan RL.
https://www.wiganwarriorsfans.com/
not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.slimshady wrote:No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.Mike wrote:I'd take Brough. He;s a great player. Took Scotland to the quarters almost by himself. Imagine if he had been in the England team instead of Chase. We'd have been in the final for certain.
....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.pedro wrote:not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.slimshady wrote:No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.Mike wrote:I'd take Brough. He;s a great player. Took Scotland to the quarters almost by himself. Imagine if he had been in the England team instead of Chase. We'd have been in the final for certain.
Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
I don't think that's the case I think his face simply doesn't fit
1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.pedro wrote:not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.slimshady wrote: No he isnt, he's not consistant at all which is why he doesnt get picked for England.
True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.pedro wrote:1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.pedro wrote: not consistant? Hudds finished 1st last year.
winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.pedro wrote:1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.TrueBlueWarrior wrote: ....and then failed miserably in their 2 games that counted (playoffs) when Brough was awful.
Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.pedro wrote:winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.pedro wrote: 1 was against the champion team, so he played poorly for 2 games. Green played poorly for most of the second half of the season then came good at the end, that makes more inconsistant.
wouldnt finish top then really.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.pedro wrote:winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.TrueBlueWarrior wrote: True consistency is playing at the highest level in the toughest games very very often, something Green does and sadly Brough doesn't. As we all know playing consistently well against poor teams and the better teams with weakened teams out in the weekly rounds means nothing, that's why winning the LLS rarely means you win a GF.
Think you need to check your calculations!pedro wrote:wouldnt finish top then really.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:Not necessarily, you can win all your games against 'weaker' opposition and lose the majority if not all against the top 3 teams as in Leeds, Wolves and us last year. Also winning the LLS is a sign of a consistent team with the majority of players being consistent throughout the season, not necessarily all the players i.e. Brough who is inconsistent and especially against the better teams. Infact I am not sure I have actually seen him play well when it really matters hence no trophies.pedro wrote: winning the LLS is a sign of consistancy as they won more games against the better teams more of the time.