I'd like a new name always disliked "Warriors" for some reason.
Seemed to be just attached as the simplest form of alliteration without any thought about the marketing of the "new" SL club. I some how thought the name was pinched from Auckland. Who can justifiably call themselves Warriors because of their heritage.
Fans scoffed at "Bulls" and particularly at Leeds with "Rhino", but these clubs did fantastic marketing with their names and emblems (not to forget mascots) always at the fore front.
Even at little Leigh "Centurions" appeared to have had a concerted effort to have a decent tag on. Not quite worked at Vikings yet, but I prefer that to Warriors.
Just a thought. I can't come up with an original name maybe a thesarus would help. Anyone any ideas on the subject or are you happy with the Warrior tag. (Everyone still calls us Wigan)
Doveoverdave posted:
Anyone any ideas on the subject or are you happy with the Warrior tag. (Everyone still calls us Wigan)
I honestly don't know why we bother with the Warriors tag. Whatever the marketing have made of the Rhinos name at Leeds I think that is the worst of the lot.
Hull ands Saints don't bother with a stupid add on and I don't see why we should either.
GeoffN posted:
One thing I've noticed about kids...they get older! Agreed, they're probably being brought in a year or two too soon, but that's been forced on us by all our injuries.
If Hock, O'Loughlin, Tickle, Carney, Orr, Faz and Rads had been fit, none of them would be in the 17.
And putting them in so early (out of necessity) will probably have ruined their confidence, they should be introduced slowly into a settled team. Now once the inured are fit they will be tossed aside like a Saints manager !!!
I think it dependson the player.
Hansen doesn't look like he has had his confidence damaged. In fact he looks like he is a class act in the making. Hock although not chucked in quite as deep is another who took to first team football well.
I don't think Melling or Colbon have been done any favours by Betts but perhaps if they were that bit better players it wouldn't matter so much that they were in there too soon.
Dawber posted:
I think what lockers15 is saying is in a couple of years our youngsters will be a little more wiser and therefore stick with the younsters, for god's sake stop moanining about other peoples posts,
you can't tell me that in 2 years time sean and gareth won't be any better than they are now these two lads are bound for stardom they will shine in the wigan squad, so yes our youngsters ( now ) will do it for wigan in a couple of years time, just have faith with them
I wasn't moaning , I was replying to comments made that I don't agree with, like I am here with yours.
Lockers is a GB international so we can discount him from the "youngsters" list. Hock also is in his third season of contention within the senior squad.
Indeed these two seem to have a splendid future within the game. My only concern for them both is the seriousness of their injuries and hope that they return to supreme fitness and confidence, particulerly in Hock's case as these sort of things appear to be following the young man's early career.
Amongst the others Hansen, seems to be the pick of the bunch for me with Brown as the biggest disappointment, as we were promised great things from him. The rest look a little short of the mark.
I hope I'm wrong and your confidence is justified, but I wouldn't wager the future of the club solely on our youth development. A mixture of this youth, star signings and shrewd investment in the player market is needed at Wigan.
i was just saying have faith in the youngsters and i agree with what you say in a mix of experience and youth, okay sean is a gb international but also still a young man, he will come good after this injury as will gareth, next season we will have a team that will match the best and next year could be our year, we all know we are struggling at the present and we know why, just go and have a look in the treatment room, i just get tired of people saying "we are not going to win this" and "not going to win that" just wait untill we have a fully fit squad,
I honestly don't know why we bother with the Warriors tag. Whatever the marketing have made of the Rhinos name at Leeds I think that is the worst of the lot.
Hull ands Saints don't bother with a stupid add on and I don't see why we should either.
Saints, I thought they were once named St. Helens. Hull were once called Sharks and this club disbanded under the rules of the merger with Gateshead and reformed as a "new" club Hull FC.
I think it was part of the SL franchise deal that all the clubs had to embelish their name.
My biggest gripe with the marketing men or RFL officialdom or whom ever is responsible is with squad numbers - I loath them.
Doveoverdave posted:
Saints, I thought they were once named St. Helens. Hull were once called Sharks and this club disbanded under the rules of the merger with Gateshead and reformed as a "new" club Hull FC.
I think it was part of the SL franchise deal that all the clubs had to embelish their name.
It can't have been as St. Helens have never had an add-on name. Another team to drop the silly name was Halifax with that daft "blue sox" tag.
My biggest gripe with the marketing men or RFL officialdom or whom ever is responsible is with squad numbers - I loath them.
I agree, a stupid idea imported from the US like the add-on names
Doveoverdave posted:
Saints, I thought they were once named St. Helens. Hull were once called Sharks and this club disbanded under the rules of the merger with Gateshead and reformed as a "new" club Hull FC.
I think it was part of the SL franchise deal that all the clubs had to embelish their name.
It can't have been as St. Helens have never had an add-on name. Another team to drop the silly name was Halifax with that daft "blue sox" tag.
My biggest gripe with the marketing men or RFL officialdom or whom ever is responsible is with squad numbers - I loath them.
I agree, a stupid idea imported from the US like the add-on names
Dave
I didn't like the squad number idea when it first came in, but I'm kinda getting used to it now. I do like having the players' names on the shirts though - at the beginning of this season I couldn't recognise half our team!
Agree on the club names though, always a stupid marketing gimmick.
jj mentioned
The worst numbering system of the lot is Leigh - their squad is numbered alphabetically according to surname!!
Doveoverdave posted:
I'd like a new name always disliked "Warriors" for some reason.
Seemed to be just attached as the simplest form of alliteration without any thought about the marketing of the "new" SL club. I some how thought the name was pinched from Auckland. Who can justifiably call themselves Warriors because of their heritage.
Fans scoffed at "Bulls" and particularly at Leeds with "Rhino", but these clubs did fantastic marketing with their names and emblems (not to forget mascots) always at the fore front.
Even at little Leigh "Centurions" appeared to have had a concerted effort to have a decent tag on. Not quite worked at Vikings yet, but I prefer that to Warriors.
Just a thought. I can't come up with an original name maybe a thesarus would help. Anyone any ideas on the subject or are you happy with the Warrior tag. (Everyone still calls us Wigan)
i know going off the plot abit but can someone tell me what the hell leigh's mascot parky pig got to do with the centurions just that the other teams mascots relate to the team name (which i agree is a stupid thing) but leigh's mascot still cannot fathom it out. :eh:
Anyone any ideas on the subject or are you happy with the Warrior tag. (Everyone still calls us Wigan) 
