Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:13 pm  

SLS wrote:

Cheers for the compliment, much appreciated.

Can't compare Masoe and Walmsley in my opinion. Walmsley isn't an impact prop any longer. He's a 1st or 2nd prop nowadays (10+ carries, 100+m, 15+ tackles). Masoe is as clear an impact prop as you'll ever see. Much lower work rate but high impact. Wigan certainly couldn't handle his impact. It was Masoe that rattled them to the point that Flower did what he did.

As I said earlier though, Amor is the real player. Injury curtailed his season sadly but he's an international in all but name. Next cab off the rank in the line of England props. Top class. I remember reading an idiotic Wiganer state seriously that Amor wouldn't make their 17 when St Helens signed him. They haven't got a prop worth shining his boots.

Mose was starting at back end of the year with walmsley coming off the bench. Both play short mins. What constitutes being a impact prop ?

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:39 pm  

SLS wrote:

Phuzzy, I'll tread carefully as you seem like you genuinely believe what you're writing and are at least trying but honestly, how much rugby do you watch ? I mean, other than Wigan, in a genuinely unbalanced manner - how much do you watch ? Because seriously, anybody telling me that Walmsley is not as good as Taylor and Flower and is on a par with Clubb can't watch a lot.

A prop's job on a rugby league field is metres, primarily. Their job is to provide the territory and go forward for their backs to play. The best are able to offer that go forward with a real work rate in defence on top, such as James Graham for example. Now, since a prop's role is so clear, it can be measured by statistics. Here are some for you to consider (and seriously, consider them because they make your theory sound ridiculous).

So, Walmsley is not as good as Taylor or Flower. Here are the average metres made per game by all three -

Walmsley - 108m.
Flower - 68m.
Taylor - 79m

Clubb, who Walmsley is on a par with averages 71m a game.

Here are how many carries a game that these props average. How often they're prepared to cart it up -

Walmsley - 13.
Flower - 10.
Taylor - 10.
Clubb - 9.

Here are the tackles they average. Their defensive work rate per game -

Walmsley - 17.
Flower - 26.
Taylor - 20.
Clubb - 19.

Tackle busts. How many times a game do these guys put themselves in position to win the floor, get quick ball for their backs.

Walmsley - 2.7.
Flower - 1.4.
Taylor - 2.3.
Clubb - 1.7.

Basically, Walmsley makes more metres, offers more carries and wins the floor more often whilst his Wigan counterparts offer more tackles in a game of which many will be second and third man in, in line with Wane's emphasis on controlling the ruck.

With this in mind, Phuzzy, are you still seriously going to try and tell me that Walmsley is not as good as any of these props ? Seriously ?

Here are Crosby's, who's another you assert was Walmsley's equal last season.

Metres per game - 73m.
Carries - 10.
Tackles - 20.
Busts - 0.7.

Firstly, was there any need for the first bit of the post? As it happens I've been watching rugby for over 20 years and a home and away supporter for much of that time. I'm guessing I've seen more rugby than you, although not knowing you personally, I obviously couldn't say for sure.

As to the rest of the post; impressive stats for Walmsley indeed. I've no issue with him being an excellent player and an exciting prospect but, as you say yourself, it's not always possible to make direct comparisons in that way. The 2 packs play completely different roles and, as is quite plain from those stats, the Wigan props all have a very similar workrate in line with that. Our metres come from the back row and centres more than prop and we are able to do that because of the very aggressive way the front row play and the manner in which they lay the platform. There's more than one way to skin a cat SLS! It's interesting that the main area he falls short of the Wigan props (and by that I mean ALL the Wigan props including Crosby!) is in defence. Telling, no? It's this blitzkrieg style of defence that we're referring to when we comment on the aggressiveness of the Wigan pack and, let's be honest, even the stats don't tell the whole story here! Do you have the percentage missed tackles for them to hand? I think I can say without contradiction that if Walmsley played in the Wigan pack he'd be expected to up his defensive workrate considerably and not only that, be expected to hit harder and more consistently. I'm sure you know as well as I do what that extra workload would do to his metres made, tackle bust and carries per game stats. Like I say, I have no problem with you championing Walmsley; I agree with much of what you say about him. But to say he's better than Flower, Taylor and Clubb is just opinion. Only if he played for the same team in the same systems and then, and only then, boast better stats would that cease to be the case.

As for Masoe, you're still wrong. Pettybourne is capable of playing long minutes. Masoe isn't. It's no secret that that is Wane's way. Pettybourne wouldn't have played half as much as he did anyway were it not for Taylor falling out of favour so even if we accept that Masoe and Pettybourne are like for like in terms of the type of prop they are (which isn't necessarily the case) to suggest Masoe would 'make the Wigan 17 every time' is simply not true. Given the option, Wane would go for the workhorse type of prop over the Masoes of this world without exception.

It's hard not to turn this into a 'our's are better than your's' type debate which I've no real desire to do. I agree that Amor would be a shoe in and I'm even happy to concede Walmsley is there or thereabouts. For the sake of argument let's say he would at the very least be in contention and get plenty games. However that is a long way from what you were implying in that post. Masoe is not a Wigan prop, full stop. That's not based on some sort of misguided club loyalty but on seeing Wigan week in, week out and being a season ticket holder for over 20 years. Trust my judgement on that or not; it's up to you.

Edit: Sorry, meant to mention speed of play the ball and winning the ruck defensively which I have little doubt the Wigan 4 do better than Walmsley too, but I'm sure you get the gist!

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:45 pm  

St pete wrote:

Mose was starting at back end of the year with walmsley coming off the bench. Both play short mins. What constitutes being a impact prop ?

That's a fair point Pete that I also think is relevant to the stats discussion elsewhere on this thread.

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:23 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

As to the rest of the post; impressive stats for Walmsley indeed. I've no issue with him being an excellent player and an exciting prospect but, as you say yourself, it's not always possible to make direct comparisons in that way. The 2 packs play completely different roles and, as is quite plain from those stats, the Wigan props all have a very similar workrate in line with that. Our metres come from the back row and centres more than prop and we are able to do that because of the very aggressive way the front row play and the manner in which they lay the platform. There's more than one way to skin a cat SLS! It's interesting that the main area he falls short of the Wigan props (and by that I mean ALL the Wigan props including Crosby!) is in defence. Telling, no? It's this blitzkrieg style of defence that we're referring to when we comment on the aggressiveness of the Wigan pack and, let's be honest, even the stats don't tell the whole story here! Do you have the percentage missed tackles for them to hand? I think I can say without contradiction that if Walmsley played in the Wigan pack he'd be expected to up his defensive workrate considerably and not only that, be expected to hit harder and more consistently. I'm sure you know as well as I do what that extra workload would do to his metres made, tackle bust and carries per game stats. Like I say, I have no problem with you championing Walmsley; I agree with much of what you say about him. But to say he's better than Flower, Taylor and Clubb is just opinion. Only if he played for the same team in the same systems and then, and only then, boast better stats would that cease to be the case.

As for Masoe, you're still wrong. Pettybourne is capable of playing long minutes. Masoe isn't. It's no secret that that is Wane's way. Pettybourne wouldn't have played half as much as he did anyway were it not for Taylor falling out of favour so even if we accept that Masoe and Pettybourne are like for like in terms of the type of prop they are (which isn't necessarily the case) to suggest Masoe would 'make the Wigan 17 every time' is simply not true. Given the option, Wane would go for the workhorse type of prop over the Masoes of this world without exception.

It's hard not to turn this into a 'our's are better than your's' type debate which I've no real desire to do. I agree that Amor would be a shoe in and I'm even happy to concede Walmsley is there or thereabouts. For the sake of argument let's say he would at the very least be in contention and get plenty games. However that is a long way from what you were implying in that post. Masoe is not a Wigan prop, full stop. That's not based on some sort of misguided club loyalty but on seeing Wigan week in, week out and being a season ticket holder for over 20 years. Trust my judgement on that or not; it's up to you.

Edit: Sorry, meant to mention speed of play the ball and winning the ruck defensively which I have little doubt the Wigan 4 do better than Walmsley too, but I'm sure you get the gist!

The issue that I have with your argument is that it is all based on the sequitur that Wigan's method is better. Nothing backs that premise up other than your own bias. Wigan finished below St Helens, despite an amazing array of injuries. Wigan lost the Grand Final to St Helens, despite them having no halves on the field. There is no evidence to use that suggests Wigan's gameplan is superior to that of St Helens and so it should not be used as an immediate starting point.

You asserted adamantly that Walmsley has been less of a player than Flower and Taylor and only the equal of Crosby and Clubb. Your statement. The reason for my first paragraph that you have taken issue with is because anybody that has watched them all play in a balanced manner could never come to that conclusion whilst Walmsley has been so superior all year. Clubb, for instance averages two tackles more a game, 37m less, 4 carries fewer and 1 less tackle bust. Yet, you are sure Walmsley has only been his equal ? It is a nonsense. Crosby, another that Walmsley has only equalled in your view, has 35 fewer metres, 3 fewer carries, two less busts a game and 3 more tackles. On average every game.

So, no. They clearly haven't been Walmsley's equal. You cannot assert that an average of between 2-10 more tackles a game but a third fewer metres equals 'better'. In particular, because most of those extra tackles will be second and third man in, due to Wigan's obsessive slowing down tactics. If we use the opposite sequitur than your own and presume that Saints' method of play is better, how would Clubb, Crosby, Flower and Taylor compare with Walmsley ? They'd need to up their offensive work rate, bust more tackles, win the collision more often and make significantly more metres. Since they are all much smaller than Walmsley, how likely is that to happen ? I like Taylor, he's a fine prop stifled in Wigan's system but the other three are the definition of average.

You're willing to acknowledge that Amor is a 'shoe in', yet I don't understand your basis. He averages a metre less than Walmsley per game despite two more carries, two fewer busted tackles and only two tackles more a game. He averages the same amount of tackles as Tony Clubb does and yet, using the eyeball test, you'd have to be insane to consider Clubb the equal of Amor. I can only conclude that Wigan's obsession with gang tackling and the distorted effect this has on your player's defensive stats has blinded your average Wiganer to a prop's main role, which is providing territory.

Masoe I haven't really argued. I can see why he wouldn't fit Wane's system. However, it would be wrong to not acknowledge that in Saints' system, he has been an enormous part of why St Helens have beaten Wigan on the last two occasions. Without McIlorum, Wigan have no answer to Masoe as Crosby and co found out lying flat on their backsides after running at him in the opening set at Old Trafford.

I guess ultimately I find it astonishing that anybody would argue that another prop is better than another despite clearly being inferior in every facet except being third man in to a finished tackle 5+ more times a game. That just buttresses the said player's stats for me. This theory is emblematic of how Wigan's emphasis on defence has blinded British RL to a big extent.

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:38 pm  

THe premise I have is that Saints don't have a method. At least this season they did not. With Milward we played off the back of fast attacking plays. Blowing sides off the park in short 20 minute bursts.

Under Anderson we defended everything thrown at us.

In the intervening years we had a mixture of styles but with no dominate way to play the game against other teams.

Under Brown we adapted our play week to week, team to team. There were moments where we blew sides apart, others where we played a very defensive game. I think the change in styles each week is tricky for players to play under. You have to be adaptable and the injuries did not help either and so occasionally we just looked like we did not know what we doing and got our backsides handed to us.

Wigan on the other hand do have a very strong defensive ethos, they can blow a side a way, by keeping them pegged back for the first 20 - 30 minutes. But I also think if you can match them in that opening salvo, stopping their attack in the same fashion that is when they can come undone. Holding them to a tight game means it then comes down to attacking players making the difference in the last 20 minutes of a game and even Wigans defense can't tackle for a full 80.

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:04 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

THe premise I have is that Saints don't have a method. At least this season they did not. With Milward we played off the back of fast attacking plays. Blowing sides off the park in short 20 minute bursts.

We have to be very careful when appraising Ian Millward's strategies and tactics. I mean, there's absolutely no doubt about the fact that he completely revolutionised the game. And arriving into SL after success at Leigh he found precisely the right team with the right group of players who could execute his fast-paced, high-octane style of football to the letter.

Most people correctly identify the essentials of Millward's gameplan. Which makes me wonder why so few also recognise that Millward was a born high-stakes gambler who'd compete with distinction at the top table in Vegas against James Bond and the entire Oceans XI. No coach before or since has been as willing to throw the dice. And no coach has seen the dice tossed back repeatedly and consistently in his favour.

Like all the best coaches (including Brown) Millward never allowed any of the multitude of SL distractions divert his attention from The Objective. Post match he'd cheerily talk about "Taking one game at a time". But if you were to ask him I'm sure he'd say he knew which teams he had to beat and how many times before the season started. Which is why Saints so often simply didn't turn up and took a caning. 'Sure, losing to Leeds by 70 looks bad. But if we turn over Castleford and Wakefield away in the two following games because we took a break - super'.

Super League winners rings and Challenge Cup medals speak for themselves I guess.

It's a pity his record was tarred at Wigan. He must, of course, shoulder some of the responsibility. But that club was a catastrophe waiting to happen long before Millward arrived. And I could just never understand the logic of Wigan jumping in for him - not because of his record - but the mental state he was in following his protracted and highly-publicised battle with McManus (which at one point threatened to tear the club apart)

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:32 am  

Walmsley is an absolute BEAST. To be honest, I can't believe people are questioning his abilities.

Yes, it's taken him a bit of time to acclimatise to SL (expected, given that he is a bit of a late starter). But you only need look at the Grand Final winner's photo to realise this kid has the kind of physique coaches literally drool over.

I mean, there's still work to do but even so - the last person you want to see after twenty minutes of Masoe whacking/dropping on/trampling over you is a guy like Walmsley who is every bit as physical (albeit differing in delivery) and surprisingly fleet-footed.

He is a walking-talking black hole sucking down great chunks of the opposition's energy each minute he is on. I can't imagine how hard it must be arm-wrestling him as the ball carrier. It's noticeable that Alex's introduction as final prop rotation pretty much killed Wigan. You could see their forwards physically wilt when he arrived on the scene.

Re: The Wigan Envy-O-Meter. : Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:05 pm  

Given the world is caving in around them (according to Cherry and white) , Saints are the reining champions and we are currently unbeaten despite a mini injury crisis is it time for a return of the now famous (even though 'that lot over the hill might not like it) Envy-O-Mater??



I think so

Re: : Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:06 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Bookmarked.

Still got this one book marked Rogues ??

Re: Re: : Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:42 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

Still got this one book marked Rogues ??