Re: Fixes for the team
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:10 pm
Coach & Asistant Coach
OR
New Attacking Coach
Centre
Half Back
Prop
Prop
Second Row
:thum:
OR
New Attacking Coach
Centre
Half Back
Prop
Prop
Second Row
:thum:
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/
that depresses me that teamjosie andrews wrote:Powell played all his junior rugby at 7. He was pushed into playing 9 cos we got rid of Logan Tomkins & we needed someone to sub Mickey Mac.
Mickey got the bad leg/ankle break playing Brisbane in the 2016 WCC & Powell ended up playing 80minutes for the rest of the season. We won SL!
We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.
Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.
We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!
So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO
So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!
We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.
Next season, I can see;
Escare 1
Hardaker at 4 ?
George 6
Woods at 7
Powell/Ganson 9 with Tommy retiring.
Lockers to go round again at 13/Prop
If Bateman doesnt leave he will be 13 cos I think its a year too early for Morgan Smithies to play loose.
This is all my own opinion BTW ????????
I think this "jigging about to enable" players to play goes further than first meets the eye.josie andrews wrote:We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.
Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.
We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!
So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO
So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!
We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.
Id further Question the situation last year as Josie tells itDaveO wrote:I think this "jigging about to enable" players to play goes further than first meets the eye.josie andrews wrote:We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.
Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.
We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!
So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO
So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!
We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.
I think the reason Lockers originally ended up at prop v Cats is so Wane could include him in the side at the same time as all the other back row forwards he picked.
I don't think it's got anything to do with the notion he's getting on a bit so this is a so called natural progression for him to move to prop. His performance at 6 shows he's still far more useful for his ball playing skills than as a prop anyway but with Sarge back fit so Bateman returns to the pack Wane has Joel T, Lockers, Faz, Isa and Bateman so five players vying for three places. If he put two on the bench he'd have to drop one of the other starting props if he wants to persist with the "switcheroo" with Escare.
The way Wane "solved" this dilemma v Cats was to play Lockers at prop (and with Escare out didn't need to drop anyone). Now I am sure no one wants Lockers out of the side but to me it seems obvious Wane has a list of names he wants in the team when fit and is prepared to juggle the team around positionally to accommodate those players. Once Escare is over his concussion it will be interesting to see who Wane picks where. I would not be surprised to see Lockers at prop regularly and IMO it will be in order to pick him and also have Isa, Faz and Bateman as the starting back three. Not because it's a good idea to have him at prop.
Mickey Mac was far from playing 80mins at the time this was done so there was an option open @ 9 to SW. When he brought tommy in he could of spelled Tommy with Mickey @ 9 and moved Powell into 7 then if he thought it was our best line up. Again this come back to Powell just doesn't fit in the squad but he HAS to be in there. Tommy was considered a better option at 7 last year and MM was considered a better option at 9 so Powell played backup hooker.We got rid of Smith at 7 to accommodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.
Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.
Fair point, and I've asked the same question myself. And in view, it *would* have been an improvement. But that's in the past now.Wigan_forever1985 wrote: 1) Wane could of played Powell @ 7 last year, why didnt he? if he was the best option we had @ 7 why wait till now
[/b]
Nobody is suggesting that Powell is anywhere near Thurston's class, Just like every other half in SL. These wild comparisons don't prove anything.Wigan_forever1985 wrote:
2) If Powell was as good as thurston, would he be moved to 9 half way through a game as a "tactic" - no he wouldnt he'd be left to do his job as a 7. That tells you Powell is not of a standard were moving him from his "primary" position makes a difference to the team
[/b]
Possibly you may be right - it’s a well constructed post.morley pie eater wrote:1) I don't see any problem within reason to picking who you think are your best players and fitting them in.
2) Lockers is a middle. Playing prop or 13 is irrelevant in this context, just as split halves makes comments about who's a 6 or a 7 irrelevant.
3) My guess is that Tommy to 9, but not for 80 mins, was the reasoning behind the 'switcheroo'. You then either play Powell off the bench or come up with an alternative.
Given a similar problem over Morgan and Sam T - bingo...you have the switcheroo! (I'm neither supporting it or criticising it here, just trying to explain how it came about in a more reasonable way than the love-child theory.)
4) I'm also convinced that the new thinking this season primarily originates with Mark Bitcon, and it's about approaching the game in 2 phases. Less points are scored in the 1st half of most games. More in 2nd half as fatigue sets in. Develop a strategy to tire the opposition and preserve your own side's energy.
I'm not claiming to understand all (or many) of the details, but I'm absolutely convinced there's something in this beyond the usual talk of "fuel in the tank". It's fundamental to Wigan's approach as opposed to an afterthought or add-on that is normally the case.
I cannot believe that any coach would ever have a tactic to basically not care if teams get a head start because you can come strong in the 2nd half. Its absolutely full of pot holes as a strategy and i just cannot believe that any team would think this was a good idea.moto748 wrote:morley's post makes sense to me. But I suppose it wouldn't find much favour with those who believe Wane is a fool who doesn't know what he's doing.
But be that as it may, I can't see us getting away with giving Leeds or Cas a hefty first-half lead.
I started a thread on the Superleague Show in General, which has prompted a few jokey responses (which is absolutely fine), but what I had in mind was to post at some point about Leeds, because it struck me that they too, like Wigan 'only seem to really get going in the last half-hour', if you can put it like that. In other words, I am suggesting that Leeds are operating similar tactics to what morley is suggesting Wigan are doing.