WiganWarriorsFans.com

cherry.pie wrote: The only player who really got criticised after the Leeds match was Colbon, and he managed to keep his place.

And with Phelps ready we had a potential replacement. Just needed to tweak that one positions by making the obvious change....

But no. In order to play his new signing and Colbon we drop players who didn't deserve it.

Dave

DaveO wrote:

cherry.pie wrote: The only player who really got criticised after the Leeds match was Colbon, and he managed to keep his place.

And with Phelps ready we had a potential replacement. Just needed to tweak that one positions by making the obvious change....

But no. In order to play his new signing and Colbon we drop players who didn't deserve it.

Dave

To be fair Colbon hasn't done anything to deserve to be dropped, he didn't play badly against Leeds just didn't finish off his change which would have taken some finishing by anyone. In the same game Calderwood score but was also miles out of position for the final Donald try.

Calderwood has been dropped unfairly, in my opinion Wigan were at the best when they had Richards at full back and Colbon and Calderwood on the wings.

To be fair you have a point Mr Dave. Mathers seems to be getting off scot free but he is probably far worse than Colbon.

I get the feeling that Noble is desperate for Mathers to play at full back just because wigan brought him in as a specialist full back.

It would seem Noble has his plan for the 'perfect' team and is willing to stick to it regardless of performance. Mathers is not indispensable as Richards can easily fill in at full back with no problem.

Another problem is where Karl Pryce would play if fit. Centre or wing? Left side or right? I think it's impossible to create a partnership without consistency and maybe that's what Noble intended to do sticking with Goulding and Colbon, but that has now gone, because he's stuck Bailey and Phelps at centre, Calderwood on the wing occasionally.

If Pryce gets fit we could play this back line this season:

Richards FB, Pryce, Carmont, Phelps, Calderwood.

Now doesn't that look a lot better than:

Mathers, Richards, Carmont, Phelps, Colbon.

I know Goulding isn't in there but Carmont only has one more season here so that is Gouldings chance with some appearances off the bench to reduce the workload.

I do have some sympathy for Mathers as he is also back after a horrendous injury but I think most people would go for my first option as having better players in each position where it differs from the second one.

Noble has also broken up the Goulding - Colbon partnership by playing Goulding with Caldwerwood and Carmont with Goulding.

Essentially two inexperienced players with two experienced ones.

It had to be done IMO but now Phelps is here I doubt Noble will use the opportunity to play my suggestion of Richards FB, Pryce, Carmont, Phelps, Calderwood should the opportunity arrise.

Dave

MrDave wrote:I get the feeling that Noble is desperate for Mathers to play at full back just because wigan brought him in as a specialist full back.

It would seem Noble has his plan for the 'perfect' team and is willing to stick to it regardless of performance. Mathers is not indispensable as Richards can easily fill in at full back with no problem.

I agree. Mathers is one of Noble's signings so he will persist with him. Now when you think about it you would expect that a coach would play the players he signed.

However not if they aren't doing the job and you have better alternatives available. We could use Richards at FB and Calderwood for Colbon but I can't see it happening. Firstly for the reason you give for Mathers, he is a Nobby signing and secondly with Calderwood I get the impression he has issues with the player so he will play Colbon regardless of who signed Colbon! If I am right this seems rather clouded judgement to me.

Dave

When mathers gets dropped from the 1st team so far he as not play in the reserve when other players that are dropped have to play

mano wrote:When mathers gets dropped from the 1st team so far he as not play in the reserve when other players that are dropped have to play

Are you suggesting this constitutes some sort of favouritism?

Dave

cpwigan wrote:To be fair you have a point Mr Dave. Mathers seems to be getting off scot free but he is probably far worse than Colbon.

Agreed. To be fair, though, Mathers didn't do that much wrong against Catalans; in fact all the backs played pretty well, it was the back 3 forwards, plus TL, that let us down defensively.

DaveO wrote:

mano wrote:When mathers gets dropped from the 1st team so far he as not play in the reserve when other players that are dropped have to play

Are you suggesting this constitutes some sort of favouritism?

Dave

Or that part of his "deal" includes reserve games to the total needed for him to qualify for the full-time contract upgrade he is initially playing for?