WiganWarriorsFans.com

up the junction wrote:I bet you've got friends queuing up to spend some time with you.

Oddly yes albeit I am particular hence I tend to be able to converse and discuss for example sport / RL with people who simply love that particular sport irrespective of whether they support club X, Y and Z. If somebody (not yourself) is an idiot then irrespective of the fact they support Wigan does not change the fact they are an idiot.

Lol. I'm looking forward to sitting down, reading and rewatching it tomorrow morning. Great effort, keep up the good work.

So why wasnt Waneball employed in the first 15 minutes?

At the start of the season Wane said they were going to play in a different way - was this the Waneball way? Maybe they decided that this was being overplayed in,previous games and they should resort to normal forwards driving the ball up to gain field position?

I did notice in the match the backs taking the ball up a lot from our line even when we were "under the pump" to use a fashionable expression. I found this a bit baffling as no forward seemed to touch the ball for several sets.

cpwigan wrote: WIGAN 4th Set - Tap On Saints 20
1 - Mossop 1 out
2 - FIRST SIGN OF WANE BALL FIRST BIG MISTAKE, 2nd man instead of middle driving 1st, 2nd pass, 3rd pass player all lateral edging towards touchline. No Saints players drawn SUICIDE PASS BY GELLING TO MANFREDI handled into touch. Gelling far better to take the tackle. Wane Ball the wrong play and at the wrong time.
AT LEAST ON SAINTS LINE THOUGH - Waneball has least negative impact, most positive in dry condition on opp try line.

So you are saying we shouldn't *ever* use the second man plays introduced by Mcguire, *even* on an attacking set starting on the oppositions 20. This is Waneball. This is always wrong.

I thought Waneball was playing this type of lateral move regardless of field position. Now it appears passing the ball behind a lead runner is *bad* everywhere. I'm not sure I agree with that.

Now execution of this play clear left a lot to be desired, but I'm not sure it was in itself a bad decision to run the play.

I asked about the second 20 minutes, so I'd like to see the analysis of that that is forthcoming.

After detail, can you break it down into proportion of Waneball plays and proportion of correct plays for a summary?

East Stand Faithful wrote:So why wasnt Waneball employed in the first 15 minutes?

One things for sure, its can't be Wane modifying his gameplan to improve things. We've surely proven he will never do that. So the players must be making their own gameplan. But then they go back to the coaches plan sometimes.

Bascially everything good is nothing to do with Wane and everything bad is Wanes fault.

:conf:

My analysis, we won move on.

Top Cat wrote:My analysis, we won move on.

+1

What a sad way to spend a Bank Holiday weekend!

Mike wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:So why wasnt Waneball employed in the first 15 minutes?

One things for sure, its can't be Wane modifying his gameplan to improve things. We've surely proven he will never do that. So the players must be making their own gameplan. But then they go back to the coaches plan sometimes.

Bascially everything good is nothing to do with Wane and everything bad is Wanes fault.

:conf:

Whilst CPs analysis is indeed detailed and interesting, Mike makes a good point here. It would also be interesting to see how much 'Waneball' was played in our previous two home matches where there was a massive amount of forward running compared to some of our away defeats this year.

Kittwazzer wrote:

Top Cat wrote:My analysis, we won move on.

+1

What a sad way to spend a Bank Holiday weekend!

+1

and i thought mine was boring