WiganWarriorsFans.com

Max??

moto748 wrote:Max??

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

DaveO wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:
If people think he should go fine, but let's not twist things. Players have improved under him. Not all of them but to say none in the first team is wrong IMO.

So who do you think has improved? I can't think of one. At best they have stayed the same as when they hit the first team others have gone backwards.

The fact Gelling is making the same mistakes as he was when he got into the team says it all.

The main thing that has done for us this year is bringing Tommy back, obviously Wane worked with him previously so that was a factor but getting him and losing Smith has weakened us. I'm not saying Matty is the best player in the world but we've lacked direction and leadership at times. Matty was a key player when lockers was out last year. We've all seen the stats for when lockers has missed games, I think Smiths direction, voice and organisation have been a big miss. I also think Matty helped free George up to play a more relaxed and free game.

The main thing that has done us is changing one player? I really don't think so.

Gildart, Escare, Tautai, Bateman, Sutton.

And yes I think the main reason we’re weaker is because Smith was swapped for tommy

Tommy is a better rugby player than Smith but Smith is a better scrum half, I was happy with the addition of Tommy but thought it would have been him at 9 Powell/Shorrocks fighting for the number 7 and I was happy with that however Tommy has been picket at 7 religiously and played . . . . . Average most weeks!

Tommy was shocking at the side of Barrett who was a running threat so quite why we utilised him at 7 this season at the side of George is beyond me!

Finch was a class act at 7 and Green was a cracking all rounder at 6.

If we are as we are for next season the spine has to be 1 escare 6 Sam 7 George 9 Tommy 13 MM

Wes wrote:Tommy is a better rugby player than Smith but Smith is a better scrum half, I was happy with the addition of Tommy but thought it would have been him at 9 Powell/Shorrocks fighting for the number 7 and I was happy with that however Tommy has been picket at 7 religiously and played . . . . . Average most weeks!

Tommy was shocking at the side of Barrett who was a running threat so quite why we utilised him at 7 this season at the side of George is beyond me!

Finch was a class act at 7 and Green was a cracking all rounder at 6.

If we are as we are for next season the spine has to be 1 escare 6 Sam 7 George 9 Tommy 13 MM

Totally agree

McIllorum at 13? That's a typo for Lockers surely? He can't run, miisees 1 in 4 tackles, can only play 30 minutes a game, and can't put a player through a gap. Our problems start at 9 - we have the least effective hooker(s) in the league. We rely on Lockers so much in large part because our 9s are C--p.

Exiled Wiganer wrote:McIllorum at 13? That's a typo for Lockers surely? He can't run, miisees 1 in 4 tackles, can only play 30 minutes a game, and can't put a player through a gap. Our problems start at 9 - we have the least effective hooker(s) in the league. We rely on Lockers so much in large part because our 9s are C--p.

Lockers hasn’t signed a deal yet so may not be here and if he is we need to get over him at 13, play him at prop try MM at 13 as he is still contracted to us so we may as well play him somewhere who knows he may suprise a few and make a good 13.

I’m not a fan of the extra prop at loose so why not try MM which leaves Tommy to play in his most effective position, hooker, if MM at 13 doesn’t work out we can always scour the market for a replacement or worst case revert Lockers back.

Flower will be like having a new signing next year FPN has played (I think) every game Lockers adds size and ball playing near contact and can play reduced minutes add Clubb Sutton and that looks pretty good also we would have TT Tomkins and whoever else I have missed for when someone gets injured in the octagon!

What’s the worst that could happen? We finish 6th ...... oh wait!

Wes wrote:

Exiled Wiganer wrote:McIllorum at 13? That's a typo for Lockers surely? He can't run, miisees 1 in 4 tackles, can only play 30 minutes a game, and can't put a player through a gap. Our problems start at 9 - we have the least effective hooker(s) in the league. We rely on Lockers so much in large part because our 9s are C--p.

Lockers hasn’t signed a deal yet so may not be here and if he is we need to get over him at 13, play him at prop try MM at 13 as he is still contracted to us so we may as well play him somewhere who knows he may suprise a few and make a good 13.

I’m not a fan of the extra prop at loose so why not try MM which leaves Tommy to play in his most effective position, hooker, if MM at 13 doesn’t work out we can always scour the market for a replacement or worst case revert Lockers back.

Flower will be like having a new signing next year FPN has played (I think) every game Lockers adds size and ball playing near contact and can play reduced minutes add Clubb Sutton and that looks pretty good also we would have TT Tomkins and whoever else I have missed for when someone gets injured in the octagon!

What’s the worst that could happen? We finish 6th ...... oh wait!

Why would we want to play MM at 13? We have better loose forwards in our junior teams!

With no addition to personel on the horizon and Wane sat tight in his ivory tower it's not beyond the wit of man to expect the same crud next season I'm afraid.
We can all pontificate how we like about what should happen but shifting Gildhart on the wing on Satdy sums up what's going on between the coach's ears!

I don't get this MM to 13 talk, we are already saying our back row is to small, in height terms, so how does this help also whilst being a MM fan I don't believe he has the skill set to become a loose forward, only my opinion. Use Mac and Tommy at hooker, if we are going down that route, and release Powell, who for me offers nothing.