Bigredwarrior wrote:
I think I’m this is a bit unfair to be honest. Powell has improved massively under Lam as has Marshall and even Bullock. Then we’ve had the emergence of Smithies, Havard, Partington etc who are all much better now than when Lam took over. He’s only had 1 x marquee player the last 2 seasons too with the Burgess issues.
I’ve been behind Lam all the way but I’m now ready for a change. I’ve given him more of a chance to prove himself than most. We’ve had glimpses of real class and flare but not had enough of it by a long way. That said, I still put a lot of that down to the standard of players recruited and an ineffective pack.
Powell improved but even if has gone backwards now. Marshall had improved so that’s one. The young kids have come in and done a good job but it’s hardly like that’s a new thing at Wigan and none have made giant strides forward just yet. Joe Bullock looks no different to the lad that came in. A better season last year than his first but even Lam doesn’t seem to rate his game. He’s not even got the best out of top talents like Hastings and Bateman.
I buy in to the fact the recruitment should’ve been better and he didn’t have much luck with Burgess but I can’t help but to go back to my question about how we’d have gone under Wane these past two and a half years. We’d have still brought kids through, we’d have still been clunky at times but ultimately there is no way on this earth we’d have lost pretty much every big game we’ve played in during that period, including absolute pastings against Salford, a poor Leeds side and Hull. We were played off the park in all three and it’s those I focus on. We had bad defeats like that 48-0 last time out under Wane and we had bad spells in the weekly rounds but in the main, you knew exactly what side would turn up in big games.
