Firestarter wrote:We didnt have to go to aus...... whats more important, a friendly over there or two points against wire? We should have sacked the souths game and come home earlier..... imo its disrespecting our own game and all wrong....... its just like the , so called, big clubs in the prem..... they put out a second string against weak cup opponents then whinge when they lose
We couldn't have come home after the Hull game, it was part of the commercial agreement to play Souths. Our record at Wire is hardly impressive so who's to say that we would have win anyway?
Get saving because something similar is going to happen in 2020.
It is obvious that the jet lag would effect them, it’s just me personally I think there is just something not quite right with this team, tactics which players to play whatever.
I don’t think rotating the halves is good for the team either. The halves are the cigs of the team and suppose to have a good combination and understanding of each other, hoe they gonna do that getting chopped and changed all the time.
It makes me think that Wane is getting abit desperate and is doing these things to the team to either appease the fans or to try show us something different, as I think he knows the fans are grateful for what he’s done but have had enough of him.
keptinthedarkfans wrote:
I posted about this before season started. But was blasted as it would not make a difference. Well with every game my theory is being proved right. It is utterly b*llocks to change your pivotal positions during a game for no apparent reason.
So if the reason is not apparent (to you, presumably?) then it's wrong? Does the fact that a double-winning coach has chosen to do this not make you think that maybe there is a reason and you've not worked it out yet?
Barrie McDermott on commentary seemed to like the idea and said it worked in his day at Leeds with Marcus St Hilaire coming on at 1 and Iestyn Harris moving into the halves.
Could it be that having a solid defender at 7 for the first 30 minutes and keeping Sam fresh is something to do with it? I don't know the answers for sure, but my guess is that any b******s being talked is of the "Powell is Wane's love-child" variety.
For the record I don't think your a troll. Even if you was still entitled to post on here and have an opinion. Your not on your own for not knowing the reason but your theory is flawed solid defender Why is Sam not if not why is he starting at full back. second keeping Sam fresh. Why does he just stand about at full back for first 30 mins. In games especially against wire they throw the kitchen sink at us so he is hardly going to be sat on his thumbs in fact would say he would both work harder at full back. I don't believe Powel is wanes love child. But and its a big but WHY start with Powel in half's when he is for all to see not a natural stand off where Sam is. Escare a natural full back sat on bench taking up a unneeded subs spot. My Thoughts are that SW does not want to leave Powel out so why not start him as hooker if he is as good as people thinks he is then rotate with a hooker on bench if needed. But instead after 30 mins we are switching fullback stand off and hooker all in one move (all 3 pivotal positions)please don't try to tell me this does not upset balance of both players mind sets and. balance of team. My final point is if SW does not yet know the best positions of Sam and Powel he should not be doing the job.
Thanks KITDF.
I have no more idea than anyone else of the reasons behind the Escaré, Tomkins, Powell switch. My post was just giving an example of one possible reason to make the point that "no apparent reason" says more about the writer's inability to see a reason than it does about whether there is one or not.
Anyway, it's all about opinions and I'm confident that, injuries allowing, we'll have a good season. Whether Powell continues at 7 or not remains to be seen. It all adds to the fun.
morley pie eater wrote:
So if the reason is not apparent (to you, presumably?) then it's wrong? Does the fact that a double-winning coach has chosen to do this not make you think that maybe there is a reason and you've not worked it out yet?
Barrie McDermott on commentary seemed to like the idea and said it worked in his day at Leeds with Marcus St Hilaire coming on at 1 and Iestyn Harris moving into the halves.
Could it be that having a solid defender at 7 for the first 30 minutes and keeping Sam fresh is something to do with it? I don't know the answers for sure, but my guess is that any b******s being talked is of the "Powell is Wane's love-child" variety.
Who cares what Leeds did or if there is some theory behind this tactic. Look at what is actually happening on the pitch for Wigan when Wane does this and make your judgment on that. That is what everybody else is doing. Those of us who thought this was a stupid idea have been proved right so far and our double winning coach wrong.
Did you say this after the Salford or hull games or has your 100% absolute proof (and bear in mind I'm not sure where you get your 99% of fans from, but I'll guarantee that's not right) that this tactic is stupid/ridiculous is only proved by Friday's result?
Do you bother to read posts properly before replying? I said "Those of us who thought this was a stupid idea have been proved right so far .." because it's not worked in ANY of them, not just the one game we happened to lose. In every game so far there has not failed to be people commenting that we look better when Tomkins is in the halves and Powell offering nothing much at 7.
I find it very strange people are still defending Wane over this musical chairs switch. Pre-season there was plenty of debate about it and while it was all speculation as to how it would pan out that is all it was. Now in three-from-three it looks like a crap move as predicted by some of us.
Yet still we get posts which phrases like " drivel from the we-know-better-than-the-coach " when you can bloody well see the evidence in front of your own eyes.
