Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:02 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Losing Lomax didn't help. But thinking he would provide the kind or organisation and creativity to match Wigan's halves and Tomkins is pure dreamland.

Nobody's claimed that - but, as CM said, losing Lomax made it easy for wi*an to snuff out our one remaining ball-playing/organising threat

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:08 pm  

Webbo wrote:

Nobody's claimed that - but, as CM said, losing Lomax made it easy for wi*an to snuff out our one remaining ball-playing/organising threat

That's true. But Lomax should never be considered an attacking pivot in the first place. That's not his game. Attempting to make him so will only end in disaster.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:09 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

For all Gardner, Shenton, Meli etc. huff and puff they are no match for players who can genuinely play rugby.

I don't particularly rate any of those three - but were there opposite numbers any better?

Richards was only half-fit (and isn't exactly an electric winger fully fit)
Charnely's a decent player and (through a dearth of quality British three-quarters) isn't far from the England team. But he aint world class.
Goulding's just a bog-standard SL centre
Carmont has had flashes of class, but is past it

What makes them effective is the gameplay deployed by wi*an. Their dummy runners, pace of attack, angles and chiming into the line are better than ours (which have admittedly improved since Royce went, but still lack variety and guile)

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:12 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Losing Lomax didn't help. But thinking he would provide the kind or organisation and creativity to match Wigan's halves and Tomkins is pure dreamland.

He would have straightened up their line and made them have to second guess what was going to happen. Just look how Leeds and Wire struggled to handle him.

Lomax going off forced Wilkin to move into the halves. This killed our threat there and also took away one of our fringe runners.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:13 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

That's true. But Lomax should never be considered an attacking pivot in the first place. That's not his game. Attempting to make him so will only end in disaster.

He aint Andy Greegory, but brings his own skillset to the game. Much as you don't rate him, he does possess some ability to send a top pass out (as well as having a eye for a gap and off-the-mark pace to set up an attack)

Remove this option from our game and it lessens our threat. Remove this from our game and replace it with Wilkin's slow hands, lack of pace and organisational skills that similarly need improvement and wi*an knew they just needed to target Lance to snuff out any attacking fluidity.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:15 pm  

Losing lomax was devestating but not the only reason we lost

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:16 pm  

Webbo wrote:

I don't particularly rate any of those three - but were there opposite numbers any better?

Richards was only half-fit (and isn't exactly an electric winger fully fit)
Charnely's a decent player and (through a dearth of quality British three-quarters) isn't far from the England team. But he aint world class.
Goulding's just a bog-standard SL centre
Carmont has had flashes of class, but is past it

What makes them effective is the gameplay deployed by wi*an. Their dummy runners, pace of attack, angles and chiming into the line are better than ours (which have admittedly improved since Royce went, but still lack variety and guile)

The halves don't physically force Wigan's backs to run those angles. They have to possess the aptitude in the first place to work as part of a cohesive attacking unit marshalled by the playmakers. The big difference is they do it at pace. Raw pace and pace between the ears. We are sadly lacking in both departments.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:17 pm  

Webbo wrote:

He aint Andy Greegory, but brings his own skillset to the game. Much as you don't rate him, he does possess some ability to send a top pass out (as well as having a eye for a gap and off-the-mark pace to set up an attack)

I DO rate Lomax. I just don't rate him as a/the playmaker. There's a difference.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:20 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

He would have straightened up their line and made them have to second guess what was going to happen. Just look how Leeds and Wire struggled to handle him.

I notice you say he "would" have straightened up their line instead of he "did" straighten up their line when he was on. Which he didn't.

Saints presented no greater attacking threat prior to Lomax's injury.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:32 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The halves don't physically force Wigan's backs to run those angles. They have to possess the aptitude in the first place to work as part of a cohesive attacking unit marshalled by the playmakers. The big difference is they do it at pace. Raw pace and pace between the ears. We are sadly lacking in both departments.

Running those angles is coached into them. Practising allows players to do this at pace.

I'll give you Tomkins being a cut above (now he is world class with ball in hand) and can read the game superbly, but the others are just a result of long-term coaching in that particular skill, along with the team playing that particular style