Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:37 am  

A coach who insisted on putting round pegs in square holes also hasn't helped us get the best from our squad.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 8:57 am  

Egg Chasing wrote:

Yes we do. They've all been injured.

At one stage this season I think we were missing our entire 1-7 in squad numbers amd have had our first choice SRs in the centres.

Let me know how you think they'd get on missing Coote, Makinson, Percival, Grace and Fages. Then take Batchelor and Matuatia out the pack and play them centre and Knowles is also out injured.

I'll give you a clue how I think they'd get on.....every weak team they have played has lost.

They are an exceptional side there is no doubting that, but they have also had the luxury of their best players being fit for long periods. I'd be very interested to see in the last 3 years how many combined games their 1-13 has played and how many ours has played.

I'm not saying we would beat them BTW but we'd have a far better chance than some of the sides we've turned up with. On GF 2019 for example we had our 3rd choice SH playing and even he went off injured.

Again though...how much is that 'luck' or is it good management? The rate we pick up injuries at wigan is another huge issue, which cant be ascribed to luck. The Saints 13 vs our 13 would be an interesting comparison, but more interesting would be comparing now with our injury levels in the Bitcon days IMO.

Lets hope this new guy...Head of Analysis, Jack Phillips is as good as they say he is as an industry leader in analytics. This is exactly the type of data he should be looking at to establish what is going wrong and why and how we can put it right. Although, anecdotally, I have a fair idea what the results would show in terms of changes to our conditioning regime and level of performance and injuries on field.

We have lost the cutting edge not only because of our failure to retain the best players, but also because our player conditioning isn't anywhere near our rivals. Its why they are often puffing in the second half, don't have energy for creative plays or do the basics (such as support the ball carrier). IMO is also a huge factor in our 'unlucky' levels of injuries.

You put bitcon back or someone of similar ilk to condition our players and we'd also be a different proposition

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:36 am  

afootingmiracle21-12 wrote:

Again though...how much is that 'luck' or is it good management? The rate we pick up injuries at wigan is another huge issue, which cant be ascribed to luck. The Saints 13 vs our 13 would be an interesting comparison, but more interesting would be comparing now with our injury levels in the Bitcon days IMO.

Lets hope this new guy...Head of Analysis, Jack Phillips is as good as they say he is as an industry leader in analytics. This is exactly the type of data he should be looking at to establish what is going wrong and why and how we can put it right. Although, anecdotally, I have a fair idea what the results would show in terms of changes to our conditioning regime and level of performance and injuries on field.

We have lost the cutting edge not only because of our failure to retain the best players, but also because our player conditioning isn't anywhere near our rivals. Its why they are often puffing in the second half, don't have energy for creative plays or do the basics (such as support the ball carrier). IMO is also a huge factor in our 'unlucky' levels of injuries.

You put bitcon back or someone of similar ilk to condition our players and we'd also be a different proposition

I don't think our fitness has ever been an issue in terms of playing the full 80, but yes we need to look at the injuries issue but we have apparently played at least 2 players before we should have done.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:27 am  

Have to say, that whole "Shucks, we got it wrong, it was probably mostly our fault" thing about both Burgess and French always seemed dubious to me.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:33 am  

Egg Chasing wrote:

I don't think our fitness has ever been an issue in terms of playing the full 80, but yes we need to look at the injuries issue but we have apparently played at least 2 players before we should have done.

It definitely wasn't an issue. In fact, at the start of the season many commented on how strongly we finished games.

Our fitness, along with our dogged defence, are two plus points from last year.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:12 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

It definitely wasn't an issue. In fact, at the start of the season many commented on how strongly we finished games.

Our fitness, along with our dogged defence, are two plus points from last year.

There has to be some question marks around decisions about players being fit to return.

1 - It was clear Burgess was brought back too early last year
2 - The club admitted they probably played French too soon after his return from Aus and likely caused his injury
3 - Field - Although he did his hamstring, he had recently had a back injury - brought back too soon?
4 - Gildart - Didn't look fit / ready in a lot of games did he (could be attitude issue though)

In fairness to the club, it looks like they got things right with Marshall..

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:16 pm  

nathan_rugby wrote:

There has to be some question marks around decisions about players being fit to return.

1 - It was clear Burgess was brought back too early last year
2 - The club admitted they probably played French too soon after his return from Aus and likely caused his injury
3 - Field - Although he did his hamstring, he had recently had a back injury - brought back too soon?
4 - Gildart - Didn't look fit / ready in a lot of games did he (could be attitude issue though)

In fairness to the club, it looks like they got things right with Marshall..

On 2 and 3 you’d like to think the club will learn lessons about giving players extended breaks at home, even in an off season that was the longest in my memory. Those two guys mentioned were rushed back because of knock on effects of the extra time at home for Hastings and French. They played Field without a proper pre season because French and Hastings weren’t back (well available in Hastings case as he was just back) and then played French too early because they’d lost another option in Field himself.

The club needs to do the right thing by it’s players but sometimes it needs to do the right thing by itself. If an extra few weeks at home wasn’t enough, they should’ve been looking to offer a mutual termination IMO and that should be the stance going forward. I don’t think that’s harsh tbh. If you can work out a middle ground than great but it went to far for me and we paid the price.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:31 am  

Egg Chasing wrote:

A coach who insisted on putting round pegs in square holes also hasn't helped us get the best from our squad.

'
The fact that last seasons squad was lower in numbers together with injuries, especially key players and the above average number of suspentions might explain you claim!


Lenagan has said that the club will only be signing one more player when the squad is stll only around the same low number of last season. Up to now, only three players have been confimed as new signings with one unconfirmed, but five players in Bullock, Clarke, Clubb, Gildart, Hastings and Kilner have left the squad.

Add to that a leading player who appears to be discontented because of travel problems, one not been confirmed that he will return from Australia, one who has been on a long term loan with no confrmation of his future at the club and a signing of last season who has yet to prove that he has been a good signing and not injury proned.

As it is intended to re-introduced the Reserves next season, either more experienced players from outside the club will be needed to bring the squad back up to the normal thirty odd players or because of the financial situation, more than usual promoted from the Academy.

The club have made it clear to whre it stands in regard to the new coaching set up, but now they need to make it clear what they intend to about the strength and numbers of the playing staff and not keep supporters in the dark like they have in the past few weeks.


The bookies appear to be showing the same concerns as they have Wigan as fourth favourites to win the the competitions behind St Helens, Catalan Dragons and even Warrington Wolves.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:05 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

'
The fact that last seasons squad was lower in numbers together with injuries, especially key players and the above average number of suspentions might explain you claim!

Not sure that explains why we played a SR/LF at centre and hooker when we had a centre and hooker available, or why we played a winger at FB and a FB on the wing.

His team selections were baffling at best.

Re: Our recent (lack of) success vs Player turnover : Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:23 am  

Egg Chasing wrote:

Not sure that explains why we played a SR/LF at centre and hooker when we had a centre and hooker available, or why we played a winger at FB and a FB on the wing.

His team selections were baffling at best.

I agree with you on some selections, but don't forget he had three assistants to whom he could consult, one of whom was the ex. club captain

Like no doubt Peet will do with Briers and O'Loughlin.

Its called a coaching team!