Fixes for the team

[medlocke]

Coach & Asistant Coach
OR
New Attacking Coach
Centre
Half Back
Prop
Prop
Second Row
:thum:

[pedro]

Powell played all his junior rugby at 7. He was pushed into playing 9 cos we got rid of Logan Tomkins & we needed someone to sub Mickey Mac.

Mickey got the bad leg/ankle break playing Brisbane in the 2016 WCC & Powell ended up playing 80minutes for the rest of the season. We won SL!

We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.

Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.

We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!

So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO

So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!

We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.

Next season, I can see;

Escare 1

Hardaker at 4 ?

George 6

Woods at 7

Powell/Ganson 9 with Tommy retiring.

Lockers to go round again at 13/Prop

If Bateman doesnt leave he will be 13 cos I think its a year too early for Morgan Smithies to play loose.

This is all my own opinion BTW ????????

that depresses me that team

[DaveO]

We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.

Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.

We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!

So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO

So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!

We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.

I think this "jigging about to enable" players to play goes further than first meets the eye.

I think the reason Lockers originally ended up at prop v Cats is so Wane could include him in the side at the same time as all the other back row forwards he picked.

I don't think it's got anything to do with the notion he's getting on a bit so this is a so called natural progression for him to move to prop. His performance at 6 shows he's still far more useful for his ball playing skills than as a prop anyway but with Sarge back fit so Bateman returns to the pack Wane has Joel T, Lockers, Faz, Isa and Bateman so five players vying for three places. If he put two on the bench he'd have to drop one of the other starting props if he wants to persist with the "switcheroo" with Escare.

The way Wane "solved" this dilemma v Cats was to play Lockers at prop (and with Escare out didn't need to drop anyone). Now I am sure no one wants Lockers out of the side but to me it seems obvious Wane has a list of names he wants in the team when fit and is prepared to juggle the team around positionally to accommodate those players. Once Escare is over his concussion it will be interesting to see who Wane picks where. I would not be surprised to see Lockers at prop regularly and IMO it will be in order to pick him and also have Isa, Faz and Bateman as the starting back three. Not because it's a good idea to have him at prop.

[Wigan_forever1985]

We got rid of Smith at 7 to accomodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.

Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.

We also had the predicament of having Escare at 1 in Sam’s absence. This year we see a fit Sam eventually, who then ousts Morgan from FB!

So now we have two players, Morgan & Sam P, who we need to play but haven't got an 80 minute place for them at the same time, they are both 80 minute players IMO

So what do we do?? We start the swapping & changing scenario that is supposed to be our new attack system!

We have Sam T at 1, Sam P at 7, Tommy at 9. Then we start jigging about to enable Morgan to play cos IMO he shouldnt be left out of the team.

I think this "jigging about to enable" players to play goes further than first meets the eye.

I think the reason Lockers originally ended up at prop v Cats is so Wane could include him in the side at the same time as all the other back row forwards he picked.

I don't think it's got anything to do with the notion he's getting on a bit so this is a so called natural progression for him to move to prop. His performance at 6 shows he's still far more useful for his ball playing skills than as a prop anyway but with Sarge back fit so Bateman returns to the pack Wane has Joel T, Lockers, Faz, Isa and Bateman so five players vying for three places. If he put two on the bench he'd have to drop one of the other starting props if he wants to persist with the "switcheroo" with Escare.

The way Wane "solved" this dilemma v Cats was to play Lockers at prop (and with Escare out didn't need to drop anyone). Now I am sure no one wants Lockers out of the side but to me it seems obvious Wane has a list of names he wants in the team when fit and is prepared to juggle the team around positionally to accommodate those players. Once Escare is over his concussion it will be interesting to see who Wane picks where. I would not be surprised to see Lockers at prop regularly and IMO it will be in order to pick him and also have Isa, Faz and Bateman as the starting back three. Not because it's a good idea to have him at prop.

Id further Question the situation last year as Josie tells it

We got rid of Smith at 7 to accommodate Tommy, who should have been playing his preferred position at 9 but Mickey was here so no room. Whereas I would have put Mickey & Tommy at hooker & eased Powell back into 7.

Instead, we get rid of Mickey, move Tommy to 9, Powell to 7.

Mickey Mac was far from playing 80mins at the time this was done so there was an option open @ 9 to SW. When he brought tommy in he could of spelled Tommy with Mickey @ 9 and moved Powell into 7 then if he thought it was our best line up. Again this come back to Powell just doesn't fit in the squad but he HAS to be in there. Tommy was considered a better option at 7 last year and MM was considered a better option at 9 so Powell played backup hooker.

Again with the forwards certain forwards get a complete free ride with Wane Joel is one of them - Wane came out in the press said he needs games, yet other players get told they have to perform instantly or they are dropped (sometimes even when they do perform) Now Joels put some really good performances in lately and earnt his place in the team, but given the length of run its taken him to get to those performances what could others have done in the same time frame

I agree with DaveO it will be interesting to see how Escare fits back in the team when fit.

The switch around we are currently doing is to accommodate players like powell who are simply not good enough but have a free ticket in to the team and i feel its provable with 2 statements

1) Wane could of played Powell @ 7 last year, why didnt he? if he was the best option we had @ 7 why wait till now

2) If Powell was as good as thurston, would he be moved to 9 half way through a game as a "tactic" - no he wouldnt he'd be left to do his job as a 7. That tells you Powell is not of a standard were moving him from his "primary" position makes a difference to the team





[/b]

[moto748]

1) Wane could of played Powell @ 7 last year, why didnt he? if he was the best option we had @ 7 why wait till now

[/b]

Fair point, and I've asked the same question myself. And in view, it *would* have been an improvement. But that's in the past now.

2) If Powell was as good as thurston, would he be moved to 9 half way through a game as a "tactic" - no he wouldnt he'd be left to do his job as a 7. That tells you Powell is not of a standard were moving him from his "primary" position makes a difference to the team

[/b]

Nobody is suggesting that Powell is anywhere near Thurston's class, Just like every other half in SL. These wild comparisons don't prove anything.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Im not suggesting he is or should be near thurston

what im demonstrating with that example is that Thurston is a top player so he would not be moved out of his primary role because he offers too much in it nd its too much of a hit with him out of it.

All this is to support my argument that the only reason we are moving things round is because Powell isn't good enough to hold down the number 7 spot of his own accord even the coach who MUST play him doesn't want him there the entire game

[morley pie eater]

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.

[Wigan_forever1985]

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.

Possibly you may be right - it’s a well constructed post.

I would counter that surely backs don’t need spelling seems a high maintenance solution to a problem we have thought up.

A half back should play the full game at half back imo I can’t see any advantage of moving them

If escare or Sam weren’t here would we still do this trick? My gut says yes and I can’t believe that there is a huge advantage in spelling players who should be able Tom easily do 80mins

[moto748]

morley's post makes sense to me. But I suppose it wouldn't find much favour with those who believe Wane is a fool who doesn't know what he's doing.

But be that as it may, I can't see us getting away with giving Leeds or Cas a hefty first-half lead.

I started a thread on the Superleague Show in General, which has prompted a few jokey responses (which is absolutely fine), but what I had in mind was to post at some point about Leeds, because it struck me that they too, like Wigan 'only seem to really get going in the last half-hour', if you can put it like that. In other words, I am suggesting that Leeds are operating similar tactics to what morley is suggesting Wigan are doing.

[Wigan_forever1985]

morley's post makes sense to me. But I suppose it wouldn't find much favour with those who believe Wane is a fool who doesn't know what he's doing.

But be that as it may, I can't see us getting away with giving Leeds or Cas a hefty first-half lead.

I started a thread on the Superleague Show in General, which has prompted a few jokey responses (which is absolutely fine), but what I had in mind was to post at some point about Leeds, because it struck me that they too, like Wigan 'only seem to really get going in the last half-hour', if you can put it like that. In other words, I am suggesting that Leeds are operating similar tactics to what morley is suggesting Wigan are doing.

I cannot believe that any coach would ever have a tactic to basically not care if teams get a head start because you can come strong in the 2nd half. Its absolutely full of pot holes as a strategy and i just cannot believe that any team would think this was a good idea.

Fair enough to target fitness as a core way of winning games but im sure Wane would rather us play from minute 1 than currently start at minute 40.

Against Catalan Lockers saved us - had he not put in the performance he did in a position he was only in because George was off the field we would of lost, that's not tactics that complete luck coupled with a genuine world class superstar. Lockers takes a knock before the second half we lose that game heavy.