WiganWarriorsFans.com

Southern Softy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:30 am Eckersley right choice for MOM but Farrell became more and more influential as the match went on. Last 15 minutes he was the best forward on show and that says something when you consider Havard, Thompson and Ellis were also outstanding.
Major congrats to Matty for the inventive way of dealing with no regular hooker available. Farrimond needs to improve his passing for the future and I'm getting a little worried about Dupree who doesn't seem to be the same player as when we signed him. Maybe there's something going round the team because Hill, Walters, Byrne and Mago also seemed to be a bit off the pace.
Hilarious when saints went potty to the ref when Eckersley scored despite there being nothing at all wrong with the try. Some eccentric reffing on display though.
And can there be a better pairing that Wardle and Marshall in SL?

EagleEyePie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 11:34 pm I thought it was a really great effort. All the talk was going to be about how many players Saints had missing but crucially they did have a very good starting pack of forwards and they had 3 very good playmakers in Clarke, Lomax and Welsby. They were always going to pose a threat as long as their forwards allowed them some opportunities and that turned out to be the case.

We were pretty dominant in the pack early on but that dual hookers we were using just didn't work in my opinion. Farrell seemed to play 9 a lot more in our own half, meaning he wasn't always available for the carries and Farrimond was never going to see much of the ball in our own half. Then as we got further up the field Farrimond seemed to jump into 9 more and while his distribution was quicker it left us with only one playmaker, so all Saints had to do was keep an eye on Smith as our only ball player because Eckersley is a different type of fullback to someone like French. I think that's why we struggled so much to make the most of our field position. When Farrell went into 9 more often later in the game we were more threatening because Farrimond and Smith could work together. Even when Farrell was at 9 though it meant we only really had one back row making runs to occupy the edge defenders, so it was still a disjointed attack. Next time I think we just stick with one hooker and keep everyone set in their positions because it just didn't seem to work.

That's the negative though on a night that's otherwise positive. We showed great character to come from behind when Saints were really getting up a head of steam. Eckersley was fantastic. That subtle dummy before he commits to a run is superb. He didn't look out of place at all. Havard was exceptional down the middle. His work rate is incredible. Same goes for Farrell and Ellis. Considering Faz was playing two positions at one I thought he did really well. Keighran had a strong game too. Some silly errors at times but we got the job done. It's going to be tough over the next few weeks but we've just got to keep winning.

BriH wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:42 am What exactly happened with Bevan French? Was it a pre-match warm up injury or what?

Very impressed with ZE! He looked very confident and reminded me a young Radders

Ipinwigan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:55 am Good hard fought win, with not being very fluent in attack.
Hopefully will be better next week with O'Neill back at dummy half and Farrimond on the outside, giving better options.
Mago and Byrne not offering us much with short spells on the field.
Mago needs to step up, seems to have gone backwards again.

M6 Warrior wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 9:49 am Does anyone know when Jai, Kruise and Coops are due back? Fingers crossed it’s not too long as we’re getting to that part of the season when injuries and suspensions (courtesy of Cullen & Cronies) start to mount up

Wigan1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:12 am I thought we played that really well considering our missing players. Throw Brad O’Neil back in and I think we win easily. I thought Moore was appalling, did we get a penalty in the 2nd half, there were at least 2 big shoulder charges from Percival. Thought Welsby showed what a classless loser he really is during the match.

I don’t agree with other posters regarding our players staying down, other teams do it, its about time we stopped being so honest and started playing the system as well.

Ipinwigan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:27 am

Wigan1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:12 am I thought we played that really well considering our missing players. Throw Brad O’Neil back in and I think we win easily. I thought Moore was appalling, did we get a penalty in the 2nd half, there were at least 2 big shoulder charges from Percival. Thought Welsby showed what a classless loser he really is during the match.

I don’t agree with other posters regarding our players staying down, other teams do it, its about time we stopped being so honest and started playing the system as well.

I quoted Ellis, because he's done it 2 weeks running, Dupree is another culprit, and yes other teams do it.
To say others do it, so we should, isn't the answer, it becomes a very short straw to us ending up like football, with play acting becoming the norm.
The RFL / Super League need to hand out warnings to players to stop it, it's not what the game is about, we don't need cheats.

morley pie eater wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:24 pm Hi EEP. I always look forward to reading your excellent summaries, and often learning from your observations. . . . BUT . . .

I think your analysis above, whilst good on detail, misses the main point: we had 4 spine players out. Nothing Peet or the team could do could change that.

Yes, as Josie has shown, Saints we're missing 8 to our 7, but they had Lomax, Welsby and Clarke. We had no right to win in these circumstances, and we didn't win because of any failure or mistakes by Saints. We won through sheer bloody-minded grit and determination - bodies on the line stuff - "They shall not pass".

Given all that, I'm afraid that going into detail of what Peet could or should do differently almost fades to insignificance for me. No offence, and keep up the good work.

EagleEyePie wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:41 pm

morley pie eater wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:24 pm Hi EEP. I always look forward to reading your excellent summaries, and often learning from your observations. . . . BUT . . .

I think your analysis above, whilst good on detail, misses the main point: we had 4 spine players out. Nothing Peet or the team could do could change that.

Yes, as Josie has shown, Saints we're missing 8 to our 7, but they had Lomax, Welsby and Clarke. We had no right to win in these circumstances, and we didn't win because of any failure or mistakes by Saints. We won through sheer bloody-minded grit and determination - bodies on the line stuff - "They shall not pass".

Given all that, I'm afraid that going into detail of what Peet could or should do differently almost fades to insignificance for me. No offence, and keep up the good work.

It wasn't meant to sound so negative. It was more of an observation that I thought we overcomplicated the issue for a lot of the game and I felt like we could have made things a bit easier for Farrell and Farrimond. But you're right, given the disruption we had there's no guarantee any other course of action would have made much of a difference. The team and the game plan got the job done which is the most important thing.

I'm just a big nerd when it comes to tactical stuff even though I understand only a fraction of what the coaches do, but the plan fascinated me as soon as I saw what we were doing.