Moreover, Wane has been unable to influence players that he has coached from leaving for a variety of reasons (many far beyond Wane's control but equally his 'pull' has not prevented them) such as Sam, Hock, Mossop, Pat and Tuson this season and others like Tommy in the previous season.
Madge wouldn't have had the pull either to influence IL as far as players contracts and money was concerned. Apart from Pat, I reckon this was/is the main driving force behind the others you have mentioned leaving.
From what I pick up, the players think IL is a tight wad mainly and although not too fond of this aspect of his nature, have a healthy respect for him nonetheless.
Madge was prepared to front IL come what may on the playing front. IL tried to penny pinch by cutting back on grounds men at Orrell. Madge had none of it, fronted IL, decision reversed.
Back on the original topic. I thought the Widnes tie exemplified so much of what I say re playing style. Even pre match Paul Cullen called it right on the risk style that Widnes adopt stating whilst it can have its day it is the reason they get beat by 40+ quite often.
The start of the match; Widnes actually had the ascendancy for 5-10 minutes. The change came via to bread and butter scoots by Gelling and Mickey Mac that got us on the front foot before Widnes then self destructed and Josh put on a show. Our start to the game was awful but Widnes let us off the hook and we got better and better. Interestingly some passes to the lead runner are becoming more effective / dangerous than the second man ball.
When one trick Pony Micky Higham is having so much joy scooting does that not send a message to coaches / players and fans. Like any attacking ploy, teams are now getting better at defending the 2nd man play and if you become overly lateral you start losing control of games. However, over use of a play can be used to your own advantage. Coaches / teams watch videos (should be DVD or files now, yet everybody still says video) until they get bleary eyed. John Monie was very clever at tweaking his plays, Wigan 2013 could do exactly the show running the bog standard plays until it truly matters and then putting on an adaptation. Moreover, if teams are obsessed with cutting our 2nd man play / Sam off then go for the easy option; scoot; hit lead runners; step or dummy. Powell's Cas put on a nice 2nd man variation against us where looked like they were going for the 2nd man play but suddenly passed / ran back to the centre and may have scored from it.
IMO RL particularly with technology can become a game of chess with muscles trying to 'trick' your opponent, showing them what they think is your textbook move but instead running an adapted play. How easy is scooting or stepping or throwing a dummy. Teams are even getting joy scooting from dummy half on the opposition line as the obsession with lateral big sweeping 2nd man plays and over analysis of attacking traits can open the front door instead.
Widnes showed how risky sweeping lateral plays can be for attacking teams.
BTW; Hanbury made me chuckle. Anybody who watched our Alliance teams very often will recall Ducky O'Donnell was the master at running from FB and chipping and regathering over the defensive line usually from a kick off. He was superb at it whereas Hanbury looked like an amateur. Says a lot about the standard of players today IMO.
We had a couple of useful set plays under Madge, one involving a short pass from one prop to the other close to the line (usually Preccy to Lima) and the second involving Joel looping round the back from RC to come in as an extra receiver in the attacking line between LC and LSR.
We seem to have neglected both these moves since SW took over. I feel that now is the time to bring them back as we are getting too predictable with the ball out the back to Sam. Whilst this works well against poor opposition the better teams can adapt their defence accordingly.
doc wrote:We had a couple of useful set plays under Madge, one involving a short pass from one prop to the other close to the line (usually Preccy to Lima) and the second involving Joel looping round the back from RC to come in as an extra receiver in the attacking line between LC and LSR.
We seem to have neglected both these moves since SW took over. I feel that now is the time to bring them back as we are getting too predictable with the ball out the back to Sam. Whilst this works well against poor opposition the better teams can adapt their defence accordingly.
I think we still see props passing, but often further backdown the field as we try and score on every play.
We used to do the one with the centres either way, George sometimes did it. Essentially its the same as bringing Sam round the back as you're just putting an extra attacker on one side, but its less expected/predictable. Maybe we just don't have the players to do it now?
We scored some good tries as well as the lucky tries against Widnes, but that relied on their defense making poor decisions and us using quick hands. I don't think you get away with this as much against top teams. You need to play the percentages more before you strike. I'm worried that we don't always know when to put the plays on in big games, because we try to do them too often.
Whelley Warrior wrote:
He does not like him for personal reasons which I suspect has nothing whatsoever to do with his claim about the players.
Can we please refrain from posts like this?
CPW has a made a clear case as to what faults he thinks Wane has as a coach so your one liner accusation just looks like yet another bit of sniping at the poster rather than the posters views.
Wrong, just making the point that we already have been told on numerous occasions, so why keep on about it?
cpwigan wrote: Coaches / teams watch videos (should be DVD or files now, yet everybody still says video)
Actually,'video' is the correct terminology, referring as it does to the visual part of a broadcast, as opposed to 'audio', the sound.
DVD's/Files have merely become the media which have replaced the now outdated 'cassette'!
#justsayin!
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
cpwigan wrote:Nee Naw I guess contractual and other off field matters. A sports club is a strange environment split between the playing side and the overall management. The playing side whilst more public is IMO far easier to deal with; the overall management is far more difficult and you are in a 'sense' divorced no matter what you think about your relationship with those employees delivering out on the pitch and why should it be any different. Jack Hilton was very important in brdging that barrier when the gang of 4 had their success. Not many directors etc have that playing experience in their armoury.
It is hard to have a strong opinion on IL without far more evidence. I did speak to Mick Hogan when he left as our CE and he described IL as a very difficult man to work for. He certainly had the evidence to make a qualified judgement. On the face of it IL has done a decent job but if you dig deeper he is far from perfect. I was not impressed to read that Madge was never our first choice and that Jones / Farrell were the intended partnership
I personally think Madge was a sublime choice but was it more by sheer good luck than excellent decision making. Would Wane be where he is now? Who knows
Are Oxford United considerably better under IL than before? IMO that would be a better indication of IL's ability? IMO Wigan was never a complete 'basket case' even under Whelan.
Success first, entertainment second. Ideally you want both BUT IMO the rules and the fitness / strength of modern players necessitates playing the sport in a clinical calculated professional manner. Look at this weekend; Hudds were made to look awful by Wire and that in turn provided some excellent one sided entertainment. Tonight, we looked awful for the first 5-10 minutes but then Widnes made some terrible blunders and we went on to provide some excellent one sided entertainment. Look at the Widnes fans, were they entertained or did they resort to finding their own form of entertainment that had nothing whatsoever to do with the game. Widnes in fact are the perfect example of success or entertainment. IMO had Widnes ever reached Wembley they would have broken our season after season CC successes, they were often more entertaining to watch BUT we were more clinical, calculated and professional. Not that we were not entertaining but winning came first!
CP thanks for the reply, sorry mine is delayed. Some interesting points made.
![[IMG]http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36 ... 40f73b.jpg[/IMG]](http://s244.photobucket.com/user/josieandrews13/media/72223_215527621935408_584616003_n_zpsdb40f73b.jpg.html){kind=link}