1. Is stupid. It means playing players out of position and why is that not a problem? No one likes Bateman at centre apparently. Clearly you can play some players in other positions but it doesn't mean its the best use of the players.morley pie eater wrote:1) I don't see any problem within reason to picking who you think are your best players and fitting them in.
2) Lockers is a middle. Playing prop or 13 is irrelevant in this context, just as split halves makes comments about who's a 6 or a 7 irrelevant.
3) My guess is that Tommy to 9, but not for 80 mins, was the reasoning behind the 'switcheroo'. You then either play Powell off the bench or come up with an alternative.
Given a similar problem over Morgan and Sam T - bingo...you have the switcheroo! (I'm neither supporting it or criticising it here, just trying to explain how it came about in a more reasonable way than the love-child theory.)
4) I'm also convinced that the new thinking this season primarily originates with Mark Bitcon, and it's about approaching the game in 2 phases. Less points are scored in the 1st half of most games. More in 2nd half as fatigue sets in. Develop a strategy to tire the opposition and preserve your own side's energy.
I'm not claiming to understand all (or many) of the details, but I'm absolutely convinced there's something in this beyond the usual talk of "fuel in the tank". It's fundamental to Wigan's approach as opposed to an afterthought or add-on that is normally the case.
2. Saying it's irrelevant where Lockers plays because he is a "middle" is I am sure how Wane would justify it. It does however completely ignore the fact he offers so much more to the team as a loose forward (in his correct position which is an example of what I said above in 1 about this notion of it not mattering being stupid).
As to it being irrelevant who is 6 or 7 with split halves it does not follow that because that may be true it's irrelevant where other players play.
As to us playing split halves anyway that requires both of them to be equally good and possessing the full set of skills expected of a half back. We don't have that now any more than we had when Smith was here yet were persit with this formation. Powell is (as Smith was) little threat and so Williams is still expected to be the key player and the opposition know this.
3) So why given MM was not an 80 minute player did we not do the "switcheroo" before now? I can't remember the last time we had and 80 minute hooker so the only reason the "switcheroo" is necessary is because Wane gave Powell the 7 shirt instead of operating him as interchange hooker. I don't care why he did it "love child" or not. The fact he did it is why he does the "switcheroo". The problem is of his own making.
I am convinced the juggling around of players with things Lockers at prop and the switcheroo is Wane trying to cram the players he wants in the side anywhere he can to the extent he is prepared to make substitutions like the switcheroo to do this.
4. If we were keeping sides to zero or one try in the first half I might believe you. At Cats we just played very poorly in the first half. It cannot be a strategy to play poorly that involves giving a side a 15 points start in a game. Against Saints we were 12-2 down at half time and the result was as much to do with that slow start as anything.
In fact the idea we approach the game in two phases hoping to keep the score down so we can score when they tire is just unrealistic and far too risky. It means the opposition are always in touch and/or it's Wigan likely to be chasing the game. If they don't tire or are good enough as Saints were to ultimately protect their first half lead, we lose.
The fitness based come back only works against poor sides like HKR and Cats. It's a get out of jail card not a tactic.
