Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:01 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

What about Hampshire on the bench with Smith moving to 9?

Obviously not going to happen this season, but is that the way to integrate him into a permanent spot in the match day squad?

How dare you mention Hampshire on this Forum, don't you know he has been banished to darkest Yorkshire for a season for not toeing the line ( even though I am pretty certain he is chuffed with the decision ).

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:06 pm  

So according to the naysayers on this forum, taken as a collective... We need, international class, a hooker, at least one prop, and 2 specialist centres.. How big is the cap?

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:12 am  

Wigan Peer wrote:

So according to the naysayers on this forum, taken as a collective... We need, international class, a hooker, at least one prop, and 2 specialist centres.. How big is the cap?

A very fair and difficult challenge but I will give it a go.
Firstly we were told we made an offer for Ferres therefore, I can only assume that we had the cash and/or cap space to accommodate that signing so let's exchange that for a prop.

My gripe with MM is that he should play 80 minutes if he can't why on earth would you extend his contract and I assume increase his salary? I still like MM albeit that I feel he hasn't played well for over a year. If he can't play 80 minutes then get shut. That's sounds very arrogant but why would anyone pay top dollar for a player who can't play a full 80?
What if ST comes back and can only play 40 minutes per game? Would that be acceptable?
Our second highest earner I suspect is SOL who again we seem to accept will probably play 50% of game time. It's the logic of the madhouse.

Now to the hardest bit specialist centres. Our game is now played by bit players many of whom have had and never will have a specialist position which pardon the pun we seem to specialise in. In the long term we need to accept that centre is a very specialist role that needs to be developed over years and not a pre season ala Joel Tomkins and Jack Hughes.
In the short term I'd give Charnley go there and Gildart. Longer term when SOL retires then his salary can be allocated for a replacement centre.
As I say very difficult but Gelling in particular surely can't be the answer.

I don't pretend to have all the answers and I know that no one person has. My frustration is that we are clearly lacking in several areas but the club seem to pursuing a policy of mediocrity and bit part players.
Last year from a playing point of view was quite painful for me with the odd interlude from Williams, Burgess and Bowen.
I know I can't be right on everything but unless we improve on our performances what I do know is that the atmosphere at the ground will continue to decline as will attendances.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong and will take great pleasure in being told that I'm an Harris if this team delivers any improvement in terms of success this season.

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:23 pm  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

A very fair and difficult challenge but I will give it a go.
Firstly we were told we made an offer for Ferres therefore, I can only assume that we had the cash and/or cap space to accommodate that signing so let's exchange that for a prop.

My gripe with MM is that he should play 80 minutes if he can't why on earth would you extend his contract and I assume increase his salary? I still like MM albeit that I feel he hasn't played well for over a year. If he can't play 80 minutes then get shut. That's sounds very arrogant but why would anyone pay top dollar for a player who can't play a full 80?
What if ST comes back and can only play 40 minutes per game? Would that be acceptable?
Our second highest earner I suspect is SOL who again we seem to accept will probably play 50% of game time. It's the logic of the madhouse.

Now to the hardest bit specialist centres. Our game is now played by bit players many of whom have had and never will have a specialist position which pardon the pun we seem to specialise in. In the long term we need to accept that centre is a very specialist role that needs to be developed over years and not a pre season ala Joel Tomkins and Jack Hughes.
In the short term I'd give Charnley go there and Gildart. Longer term when SOL retires then his salary can be allocated for a replacement centre.
As I say very difficult but Gelling in particular surely can't be the answer.

I don't pretend to have all the answers and I know that no one person has. My frustration is that we are clearly lacking in several areas but the club seem to pursuing a policy of mediocrity and bit part players.
Last year from a playing point of view was quite painful for me with the odd interlude from Williams, Burgess and Bowen.
I know I can't be right on everything but unless we improve on our performances what I do know is that the atmosphere at the ground will continue to decline as will attendances.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong and will take great pleasure in being told that I'm an Harris if this team delivers any improvement in terms of success this season.

So much of this is speculation and guess work. And doesn't even answer the post.

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:30 pm  

Sure, in an ideal world every side would have a pair of George Carmonts or Matt Gidleys or Paul Newloves. But in the real world... Leeds have been playing a second-rower in the centres for years. Doesn't seem to have done them too much harm, although I admit they do have two 'proper' centres now... Even plenty of NRL sides do the same. But if Gelling continues as he did at the weekend, with Gildart growing in experience and confidence, and Sarge back and fit, and Bateman clearly able to make a pretty good fist of playing there, I don't see centre as a position of primary concern for us.

[DaveO]

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:18 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Salary cap is obviously a factor otherwise we could bring in whoever we could afford. Do you really think our team would be the same if there was no cap?

Nothing wrong with spelling McM on the first game of the season after he's come back from quite serious surgery, I think a smart club looks after their players and considers the season not just the first game of the season.

Powell is no world beater. I don't know why people are focusing on him. But I see why he's played, currently in our squad I don't know who would be better to cover the halves/dummy half than Powell. And for the moment he's on? It's savy cap management.

Did you miss my suggestion we should have smaller first team squad so we can afford another good hooker if needs be? He'd be an integral part of the first 17 in the same way the two half backs are so I don't see why a decent wedge should not be held over for such a player. We have also had two good hookers in the side in the recent past when the salary cap has been in place so saying the salary cap precludes this is demonstrably not true and it isn't savvy cap management. It's Wane's choice to play Powell as the sub hooker and I am sure you'd agree when MM goes off and he comes on, 9 times out of 10 the opposition get a role on. If he wants to spell MM then it needs sorting out.

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Sun Feb 07, 2016 10:55 pm  

Ashton Bears wrote:

How is Bateman did not come back on did he have a head collision.

He was ok after the game, got a finger in his eye in a tackle.

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:11 am  

You can set your watch by sub times it seems as for the atmosphere given how fowl friday night was i thought it was ok to be fair.

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:55 am  

stillinthepast wrote:

How dare you mention Hampshire on this Forum, don't you know he has been banished to darkest Yorkshire for a season for not toeing the line ( even though I am pretty certain he is chuffed with the decision ).

Do you mean he prefers sitting in the stands watching Cas than sitting in the stands watching Wigan?

Re: Subbing by the clock... : Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:00 am  

DaveO wrote:

Did you miss my suggestion we should have smaller first team squad so we can afford another good hooker if needs be? He'd be an integral part of the first 17 in the same way the two half backs are so I don't see why a decent wedge should not be held over for such a player. We have also had two good hookers in the side in the recent past when the salary cap has been in place so saying the salary cap precludes this is demonstrably not true and it isn't savvy cap management. It's Wane's choice to play Powell as the sub hooker and I am sure you'd agree when MM goes off and he comes on, 9 times out of 10 the opposition get a role on. If he wants to spell MM then it needs sorting out.

No I didn't miss your suggestion. I think there are merits to having the younger lads part of the squad for their own development and for depth across the entire team, this against having Powell on the bench is a no-brainer for me.

I don't think Powell is setting the world on fire, and I do envy teams who have two very good dummy halves, but I'm also see the value in having a player who can cover 6/7/9 on the bench.