WiganWarriorsFans.com

markill wrote:

cpwigan wrote:The difference is offloading other than that it is exactly the same attack wherever. The biggest drawback is Waneball does not towards setting up last tackle kicks and repeat sets. Nevertheless, Waneball should encompass high risk strategies such as offloading.

So Waneball of a philosophy of high risk rather than a pattern of play now. They adapt it by bringing in an offloading game and taking more forward runs, but whenever it doesn't work it's still Waneball. The offload game is more like Smithball. Plus how much more is Mickey running out of dummy half before tipping it off to a forward nowadays. Smithball again.

Waneball as with any coach is their philosophy of how to play RL. The philosophy becomes the pattern of play as they are one and the same. Nevertheless you are correct the philosophy of Wane and Smith are very similar. Far closer than Wane and Madge. Hence like Wire, you will see some fantastic highs and some depressing lows under Wane. Still, even Smith won some trophies albeit he lost some too.

Personally I think applying the Melbourne / Madge philosophy is more consistent and reliable.

TrueBlueWarrior wrote:

weststand-rich wrote:Well last night exemplified the risks of this attacking style. Against Wire, we 'got away' with throwing the ball about 5 metres out from the posts. Amateur coaches tell kids not to throw the ball about in your own half. Last night showed the risks of doing it and that against a team in real dire straights.

TTs stupid pass after running 30 metres sideways?

Getting bundled backwards for a GLD?

So did we not get away with it last night?

We should encourage that stupid tactic then because we will get away with it :conf: