Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:24 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Come off it. The way you paint this comparison anyone might think we haven't moved the ball toward the backs in years. This is patently absurd. Irrespective of whether you think Saints have played conservatively over the last two or three seasons the fact remains there have been plenty of occasions when we have opened up - runners, angles and all. And yet time after time we have found it enormously difficult to score tries from outside the 40m mark. So much so I almost fell off my chair when Meli scored that 70 yarder the other week.

Wigan, on the other hand, seem to score long-distance tries with great regularity. Yes, many of them are down to clever tactics, good distribution etc. But many others are purely down to pace, acceleration, elusiveness and guile. Words which are rarely used in the company of Meli, Gardner, Shenton & Wellens.

Is this a "world beating" Wigan back line? Aside from Tomkins - no. But then it doesn't need to be in order to beat ours.

I wasn't aware I'd made a comparison to Saints' players in the post you've quoted (which was in response to some pie wittering about my appraisal of the wi*an three-quarters).

I've already said I don't rate Meli/Gardner/Shenton and absolutely agree our backline lacks pace. Maybe that lack of pace has dictated our conservative gameplan, I don't know. But I do know that most of the time over the last 3 or so years that we've moved the ball out wide, it's been not so much pedestrian in terms of leg speed, but in terms of speed of ball - something amplified (very visibly) by the fact we've lacked dummy runners/not drawn defenders in before passing/just passed the ball along the line seemingly for the sake of it.

But then contrast that to some of the plays in the Leeds & Wire games - we looked fast (both of leg and of ball!) and tore some mean defences to shreds (albeit from 20-40m out, I grant you).

We do ideally need more pace in the side, I've not said we don't. But my point is that for the past 3 seasons, we've not deployed tactics and gameplays that have made the most of the players we have.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:52 am  

Webbo wrote:

I wasn't aware I'd made a comparison to Saints' players in the post you've quoted (which was in response to some pie wittering about my appraisal of the wi*an three-quarters).

I've already said I don't rate Meli/Gardner/Shenton and absolutely agree our backline lacks pace. Maybe that lack of pace has dictated our conservative gameplan, I don't know. But I do know that most of the time over the last 3 or so years that we've moved the ball out wide, it's been not so much pedestrian in terms of leg speed, but in terms of speed of ball - something amplified (very visibly) by the fact we've lacked dummy runners/not drawn defenders in before passing/just passed the ball along the line seemingly for the sake of it.

But then contrast that to some of the plays in the Leeds & Wire games - we looked fast (both of leg and of ball!) and tore some mean defences to shreds (albeit from 20-40m out, I grant you).

We did play well against Warrington & Leeds. But let's also not forget that both Leeds & Warrington offered up some pretty mediocre defence, the former for most of the match whilst the latter at least half of it. Wigan's defence was watertight for 80 minutes. No limp arm grabs. No blown marker defence patterns. No dummies taken. Which meant the only way we were going to score was through a) weight of pressure, which haven't the kicking game to generate, and/or b) - class, which we lack in the backs and even if we did possess such we haven't the playmaker(s) to use.

We do ideally need more pace in the side, I've not said we don't. But my point is that for the past 3 seasons, we've not deployed tactics and gameplays that have made the most of the players we have.

And yet we've consistently been there or thereabouts so our tactics can't be THAT far out. Given our paucity of genuine talent in the backs if anything I'd say we've overachieved these last two or three seasons. Indeed, my guess is in ten or twenty years fans will look back at today's squad and marvel at just how close we did get with what is - in relative terms - a pretty mediocre set of Saints backs.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:00 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The difference is Wigan took us seriously. The other teams came out with red hair or thought home field advantage made victory inevitable.

Saints form of the past 2 weeks was the best thing that could have happened for Wigan as like you say it made us sit up and take note. Add in the injuries in the forwards we had taking off some pressure and expectation and our mindset was spot on for the game.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:09 pm  

Given that even before the Bulls game I thought we'd lose all three I have to be happy with taking two of them, particularly the one at the HJ and future champs, Wire. Backing up three weeks in a row against the three other best teams in the comp was always going to be difficult so I can't complain.

Yesterday was more like what we've played like over the past year and a bit so I'm not expecting too much from the remainder of the season now. Bit surprised that we weren't able to counter Wane's Millward-esque tactics of attacking the space behind the defensive dummy half, getting quick PTBs and scoots before flinging it out wide. We appeared to forget how to slow them down or alternatively they were just better at not getting tackled properly (which I think is more likely).

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:17 pm  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

What an enlightening post, particularly as this thread is full of people claiming that Saints were actually the best side.

Well done.

Well well....there's a shock, stains fans thinking they were the best team in a game they were absolutely battered in, wonders will never cease.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:23 pm  

carmont is king wrote:

Well well....there's a shock, stains fans thinking they were the best team in a game they were absolutely battered in, wonders will never cease.

Well well, there's a shock. A Wigan fan failing entirely to understand what it is they're reading.

Try again, then blush with embarassment.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:48 pm  

Well there you go,

I've definately come to the opinion that some people aint happy unless we lose. That then justifies their position of where they think we are. It was one game, it's no truer reflection of our form than the previous 2 games.

This forum just reads like from some people that they have been holding their fire for 2 weeks hoping for a lose they can churn out how poor we are. Like I said if we hit some good form over the next 4 games then this loss whilst painful will be seen as a blip, if our form continues to be poor from here on in then the previous 2 weeks will be seen as a blip.


Over the 3 week period of the new set up we have 2 from 3 in games against opposition above us in the league.

Which was some what better than 2 wins from 7 games.
But if we give them another 4 games then we can start to compare form properly rather than just peddling our own game to game theory's.

We are 3 games off the top fourr. 8th place in the league. We have work to do for sure, but it's well within our ability to get back into this fight.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:39 am  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

Well well, there's a shock. A Wigan fan failing entirely to understand what it is they're reading.

Try again, then blush with embarassment.

Read it.......

Understood it......

I'm right......

You're not.......

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:53 am  

Webbo wrote:

Blinkers? I was being pragmatic. If you think Richards IS "electric"; Charnley IS "world class"; Carmont ISN'T past his best; and Goulding IS better than the majority of SL centres, then by all means you be at peace with your beliefs.

Yes 'blinkers'. Because, like all your posts, you have a one dimensional view of things. Is Richards 'electric'? No. But why focus on that? He may not be 'electric' but he is the best taker of a high ball in SL, a veritable points machine with the boot, one of the best finishers in the game, rock solid in defence and never has a bad game. These attributes have brought him individual honours such as 'Man of steel' and the Albert Goldthorpe medal and have seen him become the third highest points scorer in Wigan's history. Compare that with most other wingers in SL (including your own!)

Is Charnley 'World Class'? No, not yet. But he is certainly International class as shown by his recent call up to the England side. He is also one of the best prospects in the English game, current leading try scorer (playing outside your ordinary centre, Goulding) and is more than capable of scoring length of the field tries. Something he seems to do with alarming regularity considering he isn't all that, don't you think? He also outplayed the only British winger than can be considered to be above him, Ryan Hall, when the 2 teams met recently. In fact he made him look distinctly ordinary that day. Not bad for someone in his 2nd full year at first team level. Now let's compare that to your similarly experienced winger, Jamie Foster. Maybe not...

Is Carmont 'past his best'? Actually no, so I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Carmont, over the last couple of seasons, has been playing the best rugby of his career. In fact I would go so far as to say he has been one of the best, and certainly most consistent, centres in superleague; a point borne out by his inclusion in the Dream Team. He hasn't even lost any pace. Bizarrely he seems to have become quicker over recent seasons! This could be down to him having played with injuries over the early part of his Wigan career. I think the only grain of truth I can extract from your statement would be that he needs to be used more sparingly in terms of game time than he might have once been. However, on the field he is every bit as good, and probably even better, than he has ever been.

As for Goulding....well you're so far off the mark with this one, it's hard to know where to start! I can only assume that you haven't seen much of him this season (and perhaps watched the Good Friday game with your eyes closed!). Quite simply, he's been the best centre on the field in practically every game he's played this year and was again on Friday. It's no surprise that his winger is the leading scorer in SL and that he is currently 5th on the list for clean breaks. His defence has been outstanding. He is MOST CERTAINLY better than the majority of SL centres on current form. Kallum Watkins and Ryan Atkins are probably bettering him at the moment but I can think of few others. In fact, here's a challenge for you; for your comment to be true there would need to be 15 better centres than him currently plying their trade in SL, so name them!

The fact is, there are few 'world class' players in England and even fewer three quarters. However, the Wigan 4 are as good as any in Superleague and much, much better than most. That's the simple truth. Anything else you care to spout is just so much hot air.

Re: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. : Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:40 am  

Your lot were up for it for our game. Roby was dictating fast plays when required, Monas normally dloes that for us. But we were our own worse enemy, we were continually trying stupid offloads, giving away daft penalties or gifting possession to you. we have been like that all season (hudds away excepted). The only time we had the ball in the first half was inside our 20m line.