: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:22 pm  

diesel wrote:

When Noble voiced comments about certain players having thier own agenda on the radio...he then stated he would have to make sure he picked the " right team " to play hull ....seems much the same to me.

He didn't directly said players had their own agenda. What he actually said, in response to the interviewer asking if the fact that a weakened Wakefield team had made some players complacent, he replied that as a team they had not focussed on the fact that Wakefield had injury problems, and if players had that on their own agendas he would be addresing that with them.

I think Trevor (was it Trevor?) on GMR just heard "the players have their own agendas" and went with it, and repeated that over and over, instead of placing it in context.

Noble only said that the team had not focussed on the injury situation in their match preparation.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:22 pm  

This squad sums up the whole problem with Wigan under Noble.

No matter how badly they play (and last Sunday was as bad as possible surely), the vast majority of them know they'll NEVER get dropped with this man in charge. No pressure for places at all.

Sam Tomkins must wonder what the hell he has to do to get a chance.

[DaveO]

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:29 pm  

Alex BP' wrote:

Unfortunately, yeah.

Tommy playing at hooker is too good of an attacking oppotunity to miss out on.

On the other hand, we do need stability at 6 and 7.

It's a big headache for Noble.

I think it is not just TL at 9 that may be attractive to Noble as an option but that he also wants to play both Lockers and J Tomkins.

The only way he can so that is move Lockers to 6 , Smith to 7, TL to 9 ( and Riddell to the bench).

If I am right he could do this by dropping Bailey and moving Lockers to 2nd row. With 39 tackles in the last game that would be tough on Bailey but that is the best choice Noble has if he wants to play both Lockers and J Tomkins IMO.

If on the other hand, it is just that TL is preferred as second hooker over McIllorum then Noble should bite the bullet and put TL on the bench as replacement hooker and play Smith at 7 and Sam T at 6 from the off.

I have my doubts we will ever see Smith at 7 and Sam T at 6 though as Smith is not a good defender and I reckon Noble thinks Sam T is too small to be a good defender as well.

Dave

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:34 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think it is not just TL at 9 that may be attractive to Noble as an option but that he also wants to play both Lockers and J Tomkins.

The only way he can so that is move Lockers to 6 , Smith to 7, TL to 9 ( and Riddell to the bench).

If I am right he could do this by dropping Bailey and moving Lockers to 2nd row. With 39 tackles in the last game that would be tough on Bailey but that is the best choice Noble has if he wants to play both Lockers and J Tomkins IMO.

If on the other hand it is just that TL is preferred as second hooker over McIllorum then Noble should bite the bullet and put TL on the bench as replacement hooker and play Smith at 7 and Sam T at 6 from the off.

I have my doubts we will ever see Smith at 7 and Sam T at 6 though as Smith is not a good defender and I reckon Noble thinks Sam T is too small to be a good defender as well.

Dave

Sam does tackle well above his weight though in Academy, although I accept SL is a far cry from Academy RL. What about putting one of our better defenders ie. Lockers etc inside him?

I like the idea of Smith/Tomkins starting HB but I don't think Tomkins should be thrown in as a panic by Noble, ST already has a tremendous amount of expectation and as a side effect of that, pressurisation from the fans to perform and to lift the team, I have no doubts whatsoever he has the capability and the ability to do so but ST should be brought into the first team in less pressure situations. Hull FC is too much of an important game for Wigan IMHO.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:40 pm  

Glad to see that McIlorum is in the squad but i wouldn't expect him to be played. It's probably abit of a token gesture from Noble after the flack he recieved last weekend for not having a back up half/hooker on the bench.

I hope Lenagan takes matters into his own hands and offers Sam Tomkins to a few superleague clubs on loan to try and get the lad some experience.........he isn't going to get that here under Noble.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:41 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think it is not just TL at 9 that may be attractive to Noble as an option but that he also wants to play both Lockers and J Tomkins.

The only way he can so that is move Lockers to 6 , Smith to 7, TL to 9 ( and Riddell to the bench).

That's what I'd think is the best option for us to swith to once Riddell grafted with the forwards.

Remember how we scored our only try on Sunday? Tim Smith's short ball to O'Loughlin with J. Tomkins supporting.

In regards to Bailey, we had Hansen on the bench whom we know can do just as good if not better defensive display than Bailey, hence why I'd drop him and start Hansen who was sat on the bench for most the game and was waste of a sub.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:56 pm  

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:00 pm  

How is it possible to lose a game in the fashion we did, and the only change being a forced one because the player got banned?

It's ridiculous. What's the point in having a large squad with competition for places, if you're not going to take advantage of it??

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:16 pm  

Katrina wrote:

How is it possible to lose a game in the fashion we did, and the only change being a forced one because the player got banned?

It's ridiculous. What's the point in having a large squad with competition for places, if you're not going to take advantage of it??

Because it was the first game and to change everything round could have a more detrimental than advantageous effect?

I would have wanted probably one more change (Prescott for Coley) but other than that I'm happy with the squad selection and just hope the players perform differently.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:18 pm  

Elle Coco wrote:

Because it was the first game and to change everything round could have a more detrimental than advantageous effect?

I would have wanted probably one more change (Prescott for Coley) but other than that I'm happy with the squad selection and just hope the players perform differently.

That was the only other change I would have made.

Hopefully it may still happen.