Page 2 of 2
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:40 pm
by morley pie eater
Mmmmm!
I might be putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but could there be a faultline here between fans' understanding of a prop, and that of the coach and players?
I see a possible link between this and the comments that we seem to be fitter than other teams.
Here's a possible explanation: Wigan have evolved, through the Wane/Bitcon and Lam eras, a fitness regime based around lightweight forwards, whose role is less about punching holes in the opposition and more about containment. This applies particularly in the first 20 minutes of each half.
Then our superior mobility and extra "fuel in the tank" from not having big, tired props pays dividends, especially as the opposition tire.
This would explain our apparent superior fitness and Joe Shorrocks considering himself a replacement for George Burgess.
If this is anywhere near right, the one flaw I can see is the reliance on wingers to get us out of our own half leading to the long list of injuries to Burgess, Manfredi, Marshall...
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:01 pm
by nathan_rugby
morley pie eater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:40 pm
Mmmmm!
I might be putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but could there be a faultline here between fans' understanding of a prop, and that of the coach and players?
I see a possible link between this and the comments that we seem to be fitter than other teams.
Here's a possible explanation: Wigan have evolved, through the Wane/Bitcon and Lam eras, a fitness regime based around lightweight forwards, whose role is less about punching holes in the opposition and more about containment. This applies particularly in the first 20 minutes of each half.
Then our superior mobility and extra "fuel in the tank" from not having big, tired props pays dividends, especially as the opposition tire.
This would explain our apparent superior fitness and Joe Shorrocks considering himself a replacement for George Burgess.
If this is anywhere near right, the one flaw I can see is the reliance on wingers to get us out of our own half leading to the long list of injuries to Burgess, Manfredi, Marshall...
Could be true but do the signings of Singleton and Burgess fit that theory ? And the 2 year extension club got?
I think the Singleton one does, but the other two no.
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:41 pm
by Wintergreen
morley pie eater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:40 pm
Mmmmm!
I might be putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but could there be a faultline here between fans' understanding of a prop, and that of the coach and players?
I see a possible link between this and the comments that we seem to be fitter than other teams.
Here's a possible explanation: Wigan have evolved, through the Wane/Bitcon and Lam eras, a fitness regime based around lightweight forwards, whose role is less about punching holes in the opposition and more about containment. This applies particularly in the first 20 minutes of each half.
Then our superior mobility and extra "fuel in the tank" from not having big, tired props pays dividends, especially as the opposition tire.
This would explain our apparent superior fitness and Joe Shorrocks considering himself a replacement for George Burgess.
If this is anywhere near right, the one flaw I can see is the reliance on wingers to get us out of our own half leading to the long list of injuries to Burgess, Manfredi, Marshall...
Perhaps. Issue here though is the state of the smaller players after said 20 mins (and more importantly at the tail end of the year after x months of doing this).
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:35 pm
by Exiled Wiganer
I think we would like another big lad (or even 2), but we can do a lot with what we have. After we went to Sydney and lost, they said they wanted bigger lads, but with these new rules speeding up the game, maybe 2 big lads is all a team needs.
In Wane’s case, he was a 13 who moved to prop over time, so maybe that formed his perspective. Lam seems to know what he is doing, and I would trust his judgement, and it can certainly work (Saints away to seal the LLS showed that). I would be happier if the Burgess money was spent on a like for like (who can run).
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:33 pm
by Charriots Offiah
HDS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:21 pm
I think Joe is improving very much, but I feel he is on the small side for a prop at the moment.
I feel he his better suited to the Loose Forward role, he his mobile and has good handling skills. He is
making a very good impact from the bench!
He is certainly a vital part of the first team squad and adds to the team in whatever position he plays.
I would add to that, he has got an excellent step at the defensive line.
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:36 pm
by Charriots Offiah
morley pie eater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:40 pm
Mmmmm!
I might be putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but could there be a faultline here between fans' understanding of a prop, and that of the coach and players?
I see a possible link between this and the comments that we seem to be fitter than other teams.
Here's a possible explanation: Wigan have evolved, through the Wane/Bitcon and Lam eras, a fitness regime based around lightweight forwards, whose role is less about punching holes in the opposition and more about containment. This applies particularly in the first 20 minutes of each half.
Then our superior mobility and extra "fuel in the tank" from not having big, tired props pays dividends, especially as the opposition tire.
This would explain our apparent superior fitness and Joe Shorrocks considering himself a replacement for George Burgess.
If this is anywhere near right, the one flaw I can see is the reliance on wingers to get us out of our own half leading to the long list of injuries to Burgess, Manfredi, Marshall...
I disagree Morley, these are the same forwards that we had last season but their fitness seems to have gone up a notch.
Re: Joe Shorrocks hopes to show Wigan Warriors don't need to sign a prop
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:18 pm
by morley pie eater
Charriots Offiah wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:36 pm
morley pie eater wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:40 pm
Mmmmm!
I might be putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but could there be a faultline here between fans' understanding of a prop, and that of the coach and players?
I see a possible link between this and the comments that we seem to be fitter than other teams.
Here's a possible explanation: Wigan have evolved, through the Wane/Bitcon and Lam eras, a fitness regime based around lightweight forwards, whose role is less about punching holes in the opposition and more about containment. This applies particularly in the first 20 minutes of each half.
Then our superior mobility and extra "fuel in the tank" from not having big, tired props pays dividends, especially as the opposition tire.
This would explain our apparent superior fitness and Joe Shorrocks considering himself a replacement for George Burgess.
If this is anywhere near right, the one flaw I can see is the reliance on wingers to get us out of our own half leading to the long list of injuries to Burgess, Manfredi, Marshall...
I disagree Morley, these are the same forwards that we had last season but their fitness
seems to have gone up a notch.
You may be right, but one implied question I was asking was about the link between apparent fitness/stamina and style of play or gameplan. Clearly if one teams approach is to have big props running at a brick wall all match, they're likely to tire quicker than smaller props (or "middles") who aren't asked to do that.
So our fitness/stamina seems to be better than every team we've played so far, but how much is that due to our training regime, how much to the demands that our approach puts on our forwards, and how much to other factors (eg we have a lot of young forwards)?