Re: Mossop : Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:40 pm  

MadDogg wrote:

Yes, give me Mossop over Walmsley any day.

Come on mate don't be stubborn for the sake of it.

The notion that Wigan are not interested in their prop forwards making good metres upfield literally makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

But what you are failing to acknowledge is that Wigan play differently to Saints.

Wigan are second in tries scored, and third in metres made. If your mark is metres made then were behind Wire. It doesn't work like that does it.

Jonh have a word with RH he'll tell you that was the reason why we didn't persue Walmsley.

Re: Mossop : Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:52 pm  

I'm not calling the lateral movement reason into question I am however bemused by the notion that we then sign Tautai if that is a justified reason.

I also understand we play a different style to Saints but I also think that using that to justify our weakness in the Props is slightly cart in front of horse. Why not have good go forward across the pitch? The lack of go forward in the pack and inconsistencies in the halves were raised as an issue by a significant number of people prior to the season, I see no evidence that, that was not justified.

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:57 am  

I get what Rogues is saying about some clubs having a different way of using their props. At Leeds we set up to get a load of metres from our back 3 (has really hurt us missing Briscoe and at times Hall and Hardaker). It's a different style and sometimes it doesn't work but other times it's a great advantage. Also get the defensive thing because we had Kirke and Bailey for years and a lot of our fans couldn't stamd them because of low carry totals in attack but both provided good solid defence.

Personally though I'm delighted we didn't end up with Mossop and we're a club who are sort on numbers once injuries hit so that's saying something. Whilst I highhlighted Kirke and Bailey at Leeds, they were sub props who came on and did a job. Mossop is a starter, an international, a former NRL prop. He should be doing more. It's one thing for your sub props to do a job defensively like Kirke and Bailey but it'd be nothing if the starter in Peacock didn't run the ball in on attack consistanly.

That you usually have 4 props in your match day 17 you shouldn't be looking for them all to do the same thing in attack and defence but they should as a unit complement each other. If you had 4 props who could run well but can't defend for toffee it's not good. Visa versa 4 good defenders who do little in attack is no good either. When you're the starter though for a top 4 club you should be impressing in both departments. Subs can be excused for doing a certain aspect of the job, a starter not so much.

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:03 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

And Walmsley has missed a lot more tackles.
When Wigan looked at him their scouts reports advised against signing him, because his lateral movement was poor. If you watch the Saints game two weeks ago, he was blowing out of his backside after 10 minutes, we didn't capitalize but that was down to our poor completion.

Classic Rogues

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:16 am  

So SW has decided that the traditional prop role is now redundant.

He could be the only coach in world RL to think this way yet he'll still find support on this board.

No matter what ridiculous depths he sinks to you'll always get someone on here who will back him.

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:28 am  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

i.e. a failure

Probably yes.

He's so frustrating because for 3 or 4 games out of 10 he looks a top player but then he goes back in to the old lethargic routine.

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:21 am  

I cant say id noticed him out on the field to be honesy

And as for Walmsley, any team in SL and most in the NRL would porbably have him given the chance. Top player

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:24 am  

[Gareth] wrote:

And as for Walmsley, any team in SL and most in the NRL would porbably have him given the chance. Top player

Nah, his style doesn't fit Wigan. All he does it make metres.

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:57 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Nah, his style doesn't fit Wigan. All he does it make metres.

can he play Centre?

Re: Mossop : Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:43 am  

There's an old saying 'props win pots'. Without a superior engine room a team will find it difficult to win the arm wrestle putting the backs in the right position on the pitch to score and win the game.

In our props we should expect them to make the hard yards down the middle putting the team in the right positions on the park, in tern tiring the opposition through forcing them to make repeat tackles on the larger hard running props. In defence they tackle and do what they can to drive the opposition back.

Without the engine room we are on the back foot. However as much as the props need to step up what about the 9? They need a smart 9 who can read the game and the defensive line, scoot to make a quick 10-15, and provide good distribution bringing the forwards into the game, Cam Smith is the master of this.