McIlorum and Gelling released

[ian b]

starting to regret getting my season ticket renewed. Can you get your money back ?

[DaveO]

2016 proved we don't need MM, we played better rugby than we did in 2017, we finished 4 places higher than in 2017, we became Super League Champions unlike in 2017

Good grief. What an absolutely ridiculous statement. A five year old would not come out with such daft "logic".

The logic might be flawed but I'd agree with Medlockes sentiment. Powell had a fantastic season in 2016 and with young Ganson doing so well, something had to give.
Don't think it's been handled very well but it could work out well for all parties.

Powell has never had a fantastic season at hooker. All he did in 2016 ius play a lot of games and for some reason some think this equates to him being a good player. He is bang averagve. There is not one team in the league that considers him a threat and no one is asking is he available. When he comes on for MM we go backwards. He is one of Wanes regular substitutions that when made, leaves me counting the minutes until he goes off again hoping we don't concede too many tries in the meantime. What is absolutely true is when on the pitch the attack gets nothing from the hooker.

[lucky 13]

Im not saying Powel is great but he can play 80 minutes at a decent level. Defensivley hes very solid and was topping tackle counts 2016. As a replacement 9 he offers nothing for me but thats down to who picks the team. Lets not forget either while at the world cup Mickey did look better than he did for us last season, he was playing against Wales and Italy in two of the games and the other against PNG Ireland struggled to create or score.... just saying.

[DaveO]

2016 proved we don't need MM, we played better rugby than we did in 2017, we finished 4 places higher than in 2017, we became Super League Champions unlike in 2017

Good grief. What an absolutely ridiculous statement. A five year old would not come out with such daft "logic".

About as ridiculous as your ranting on Dave, facts speak for themselves, we are constantly told that Hooker is one of the most important positions in the team, so if that is the case and as you say Powell is nowhere near as good as MM then how come we performed better and became champions in 2016 with a mediocre Hooker :exc:

You aren't pointing out any facts. I can't believe you are persisting with the ridiculous notion that because we won a GF in 2016 it's because we had Powell at hooker and not MM. You are being absolutely daft to even suggest it. It's a classic bit of "it does not follow" flawed logic.

Just because A is true (we won a GF), B is true (Powell played 9 that season) and C is true (MM didn't) it does not follow A is true because B and C are true. There is not one variable here - who played hooker. The team was different in several ways such as we had Charnely and Smith in the side to give just two examples.

To conclude Powell is better than MM because we won a GF in 2016 ignores every other variable so is just stupid.

[fozzieskem]

i Have to say I don’t like the direction Lenegan is taking players I come and go of course part and apr el of things but he driving the club in a way that’s alienating fans and in regards to Micky I can’t for the life of me think Wane would want him to leave?

His position I feel has been fatally weakened today but untypical wigan fashion Lenegan won’t pull the trigger

[medlocke]

Good grief. What an absolutely ridiculous statement. A five year old would not come out with such daft "logic".

About as ridiculous as your ranting on Dave, facts speak for themselves, we are constantly told that Hooker is one of the most important positions in the team, so if that is the case and as you say Powell is nowhere near as good as MM then how come we performed better and became champions in 2016 with a mediocre Hooker :exc:

You aren't pointing out any facts. I can't believe you are persisting with the ridiculous notion that because we won a GF in 2016 it's because we had Powell at hooker and not MM. You are being absolutely daft to even suggest it. It's a classic bit of "it does not follow" flawed logic.

Just because A is true (we won a GF), B is true (Powell played 9 that season) and C is true (MM didn't) it does not follow A is true because B and C are true. There is not one variable here - who played hooker. The team was different in several ways such as we had Charnely and Smith in the side to give just two examples.

To conclude Powell is better than MM because we won a GF in 2016 ignores every other variable so is just stupid.

Powell plays 80 a game enough said, I win

[moto748]

It's hardly a surprise to see these two released although the McIlorum decision does seem to be salary cap related as there's no way he would have wanted to leave unless 'encouraged' to do so.

I can't say I've been too impressed with McIlorum in recent years as his form hasn't been close to the top hookers in Super League. While his attacking game looked much improved in the world cup there will be plenty of players who impressed in the tournament and then don't replicate it for their club. There always is. Many players play above their usual level when playing for tier 2 nations.

His defence in the world cup was shocking at times though (in between some fantastic hits which were great to watch) and that's been his biggest problem because his defence was very poor for us too. Everyone seems to be impressed by him running around like a headless chicken but it's just as likely to create gaps for players to exploit or leave him out of position and having to cover/making ineffective tackles. It happened for Ireland in the world cup and it happened when he was playing for us quite a few times this year (most notably in the challenge cup final).

However, I'm not convinced the players who will be playing in his place are top hookers either, and one thing McIlorum has in his favour is that he's a natural hooker whereas sometimes Powell doesn't look completely comfortable, albeit he's younger and less experienced and likely to improve his knowledge of the role over time.

I'm not going to criticise Powell. I actually think he's a decent player and will still be learning the hooking role and working on ways to improve his game. As long as he can improve his passing accuracy and show some of the awareness from dummy half that he demonstrated on occasion, but not frequently enough, last season.

I don't think the difference between McIlorum and Powell is massive as some do. In fact the biggest issue last year wasn't that McIlorum was good and Powell wasn't, it was that they were both inconsistent, sometimes poor but when one had a good game the other didn't. In several games Powell was better than McIlorum and vice versa.

I'm quietly confident that Powell would do better at hooker this year but it does seem to mean that he won't be given a chance in the halves and that's still one option I'd like to see, given how he seems a more natural scrum half option alongside Williams and his running game.

We don't know what Leuluai will bring at hooker. He has been a quality hooker for us but that was a few years ago and it remains to be seen whether his form last year was down to where he played or other circumstances or whether it's a case of an older player whose ability is declining.

I'm excited at the thought of Ganson getting more games for us though. He looked very good in his first team games last season and even if he doesn't become a regular there's a greater chance of him getting Super League games. He's been far too good for the under 19's for a couple of years and he's one of the most exciting prospects in the game.

What this adds though is more uncertainty, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. We needed changes to be made but to be going into the new season without really knowing what the spine of the team will be can't be beneficial to the team.

Agree with nearly all of that, especially the bit about there not being that much between Powell and MM.

I do think that Powell looks a rather better half than he does hooker, and it'll be interesting to see if he gets any opportunities there. Depends a bit of Jake Shorrocks' progress, I suppose.

Ganson does look a good prospect, but I seem to recall he did miss rather a lot of tackles in his first-team games last season.

[morley pie eater]

Good grief. What an absolutely ridiculous statement. A five year old would not come out with such daft "logic".

About as ridiculous as your ranting on Dave, facts speak for themselves, we are constantly told that Hooker is one of the most important positions in the team, so if that is the case and as you say Powell is nowhere near as good as MM then how come we performed better and became champions in 2016 with a mediocre Hooker :exc:

You aren't pointing out any facts. I can't believe you are persisting with the ridiculous notion that because we won a GF in 2016 it's because we had Powell at hooker and not MM. You are being absolutely daft to even suggest it. It's a classic bit of "it does not follow" flawed logic.

Just because A is true (we won a GF), B is true (Powell played 9 that season) and C is true (MM didn't) it does not follow A is true because B and C are true. There is not one variable here - who played hooker. The team was different in several ways such as we had Charnely and Smith in the side to give just two examples.

To conclude Powell is better than MM because we won a GF in 2016 ignores every other variable so is just stupid.

First, I'm a big fan of MM and think it's a mistake to let him go.

Second, I agree with your earlier point, Dave, that blame for MM's limited play at Wigan is down to the coach, evidenced by his performances under Mark Aston.

Third however, your attempt to label Medlocke as illogical is based on you misinterpreting what he said:
Forget your A, B and C, Medlocke's point, perfectly clearly explained, is that for us to win the GF in 2016 with Powell playing 80 minutes through most of the season, and in such a crucial role, suggests that he can't be as bad as some say he is.

This is not what you characterise Medlocke as saying, see above. He didn't say we won because Powell played, but the fact that we won with Powell playing in a crucial role indicates that he can't be that bad.
"It seems unlikely that any team would win the GF with a poor or below average hooker." You may disagree with that statement, but to label it illogical is strange.

It's fair enough to have a different opinion, but it's your definition of what is or isn't logical that I take issue with.

[Wes]

What has MM offered us in the last 2 season on form that Powell hasn’t?

Serious question by the way.

Since he was out injured for most of one of them that is a bit of an strange question but if you want a proper answer I think Mark Aston is the man to answer it. The coach who had him playing as he did for Ireland.

As to a simple comparison with Powell, MM is better in every department. Better passer, better tackler and better dummy half player.

You are asking the wrong question anyway because if you really think MM is no better than Powell you should be asking why have we not got rid of the pair of them.

Really wrong question? What has he done for Wigan in the last 2 seasons that Powell hasn’t?

I don’t care how he did for Ireland I care how people play for us soooo last 2 seasons what’s he done?

I’m happy to believe he’s playing to Wanes game plan making him less effective BUT Wane is still coach so under Wane him and Powell are very similar.

[morley pie eater]

Given that what's happened has happened, and if Tommy is now (rightly) considered a hooker, we should surely be looking to sign a half-back, given space under the salary cap?