Re: Wakefield (a) : Wed Jul 12, 2023 12:49 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Having just the watched the match here are a couple thoughts.

Firstly, in light of a couple posts from Wakey fans, I need to address the reffing. If you want the very definition of "refereeing inconsistency" check out Wakefield's first kick of the game and the one that was penalised at the end. There is absolutely no difference yet one was given as a penalty. Neither was a penalty. Secondly, the last "knock on" that turned possession over was a disgraceful decision. In the end, credit to Wakefield for hanging in there when the game was "gone" but, ultimately, the game was gifted to them by two utterly ridiculous refereeing decisions.

On to Wigan.

There's nothing wrong with Cust per se, but unfortunately he adds nothing extra. Using a bench spot just to give O'Neil a 10 minute breather, especially for a team light on props, is tantamount to recklessness. Peet needs to be ruthless. I'm sure Cade is a great guy but enough already! Play the extra forward that we actually need. If O'Neill needs a break, slot Shorrocks in at dummy half for 10 minutes. An extra forward is FAR more useful to us than a "more of the same" interchange hooker for a few minutes a match.

Field MUST play 6. We abandoned that far too early. If he doesn't trust him defending in the line switch him and French around when defending. Bevan is far more effective at 1. Jai is far more effective than Bevan attacking in the line. For God's sake use the tools at our disposal to their best advantage. The "conundrum" is only that if we make it one, which is exactly what we're doing at the moment.

Mago was fine. The performance he put in at Wakefield would have been exactly what we need from a bench prop. Unfortunately, minus Cooper, Havard and Ellis, we're lacking too much firepower before he comes on. There isn't a simple answer but playing an extra forward would certainly help.

Nsemba has to play. He was the best back rower on the pitch. Again. I understand he and Hill are young but players will be back soon. Rest them then. Right now we need them on the pitch.

Congrats to Wakefield. The win could revitalise them for the back end of the season but I can't help feeling that was one that got away.

So you managed to watch all the game and didn't see any dubious decisions in Wigan's favour? Well done!

Re: Wakefield (a) : Wed Jul 12, 2023 4:31 pm  

wotsupcas wrote:

So you managed to watch all the game and didn't see any dubious decisions in Wigan's favour? Well done!

I get that Wakey fans seem to like changing the facts to suit a given narrative, but where exactly did I say they were the only 2 dubious decisions? I would very much appreciate the quote. Cheers in advance.

For the record I saw loads more dubious decisions both ways. My post was referring specifically to the 2 at the end that changed the result particularly with reference to refereeing inconsistency and with regards to previous Wakefield fans seeming to think they were hard done to. Do keep up.

If you want to discuss the most bizarre decision of the entire game let's chat about the ref giving Lineham 3...not 1, not 2 but 3!!... attempts to get a play the ball right rather than penalising him for an incorrect play the ball. Care to explain as your so keen to engage in the discussion?

Re: Wakefield (a) : Wed Jul 12, 2023 4:42 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

Cust is adding next to nothing in his spells. Maybe it’s not his fault, as 10-15 minutes isn’t very long to make an impact but we’ve also conceded points in some of his spells (in in games where we’ve conceded far less than we did at Wakey). That last bench spot being taken by Shorrocks as a utility is definitely the way to go IMO. He may as well give O’Neill the breather and that will at least keep us solid around the middle.

I put on the other forum that I thought we were far too quick to dump Field from 6 but changing it a week out from a cup semi would be brave. I’m not sure I’d change it now. I put Fridays loss all on the teams lack of concentration and the props getting bullied. I actually thought French took a step forward at 6, in that he seemed more prepared to take the line on.

The alternative view would be 'is it brave or stupid to stick with something that clearly isn't working'? I get where you're coming from but we clearly worked on Field at 6 prior to Leigh so it's not like a completely new scenario. I agree we dumped it too quickly. I'd have preferred we worked on addressing the defensive issues. Field is not a bad defender. He's just not suited to defending in the line where upper body strength is a prerequisite. I disagree with Jonh in that I don't see the problem in switching roles. Accepting there's a problem and dealing with it is preferable to pretending there isn't one or alternatively changing everything just to deal with an easily remedied weakness.

Tbh, I actually think making the switch would be a positive rather than a negative anyway, regardless of it solving a problem as it would be utilising the best aspects of both players and would open up further variations in the switch play in attack.