Re: WELLENS : Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:19 am  

Mugwump wrote:

. Unfortunately, this would mean Royce dropping his tactic of a non-playing 17th substitute.

I heard about this from a Saints friend!
Whats it all about? Does he really not play 1 of the 4 interchanges and just leave them on the bench?

Re: WELLENS : Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:31 am  

Fatbelly wrote:

I heard about this from a Saints friend!
Whats it all about? Does he really not play 1 of the 4 interchanges and just leave them on the bench?

Most of past year and this year, he leaves our back on the be ch for either the full 80 mins or if they lucky they get 8 mins at the end.

Most cant understand why we play with 16 players but there are some on here that we ain't at disadvantage with 16 v 17 every week.

Re: WELLENS : Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:33 am  

Whilst Wellens is an issue. He is not the cause of our loss. It's more of a polishing issue than the base problem.

1. He has just come back from injury so may not be fully fit yet
2. Even if he is fully fit and that's as good as it gets, the lack of team effort in the defensive line was the cause of the loss.
3. He could do a job in other roles
4. I don't think we can say Royce is fixed with who he plays. (dropped meli for Wheeler, dropped Lance for Gaskell)

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:45 am  

jdrocket wrote:

Please tell me you aren't a Wigan fan? Acrually, no unless you started watching rugby in 2010, you know that you are talking out of your booty.

Pat richards is one of the worst fullbacks Wigan have ever had. Fact!

Either learn to read or learn your facts.

Care to quote these "facts"? Or perhaps you'd like to respond to my post with something other than vague generalisations and veiled innuendo? Or maybe you'd like to stop talking until you've something to say that's actually worth listening to. The simple truth is you know less than feck all about Pat Richards, his qualities at fullback or for that matter the difference between your a*rse and your elbow.....

Let's start with these "facts" you keep quoting shall we? I await your statistical feast with bated breath. Especially the vast amount of data you've presumably aquired on Makinson's many performances at fullback that support your claim that he's better than Richards.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:27 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

Care to quote these "facts"? Or perhaps you'd like to respond to my post with something other than vague generalisations and veiled innuendo? Or maybe you'd like to stop talking until you've something to say that's actually worth listening to. The simple truth is you know less than feck all about Pat Richards, his qualities at fullback or for that matter the difference between your a*rse and your elbow.....

Let's start with these "facts" you keep quoting shall we? I await your statistical feast with bated breath. Especially the vast amount of data you've presumably aquired on Makinson's many performances at fullback that support your claim that he's better than Richards.

Richards isn't a fullback, Makinson is, so of course Makinson is the better full back. Just cause he's a Wire doesn't mean he's wrong. Jeez some people on these forums are ridiculous.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:37 am  

Wellens could make a good centre in my opinion.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:53 am  

saintcj wrote:

Wellens could make a good centre in my opinion.

Far too slow. Wouldn't be a threat with the ball and all the opposition would need to do to score would be to go the other way then come back to his side and they could walk through to score.

He needs to retire, he's rapidly destroying his legacy and he's going to end up being an embarrassment to himself and the club.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:48 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

he's going to end up being an embarrassment to himself and the club.

Way, way OTT and hugely disrespectful IMO.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:53 pm  

gotta tighten your defence before worrying about the attack tbh

wellens would be a good centre option for you right now.

Re: WELLENS : Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:17 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

He needs to retire, he's rapidly destroying his legacy and he's going to end up being an embarrassment to himself and the club.

puts into perspective what Radders did, having been retired for a while, and having dodgy knees, came back out of retirement for the love of his home town club, and still could cut it at the highest level - legend