Bizarre comment. Ryan Bailey Danny Maguire say no more

Yep worked that way in 2012 with Leeds vs Wigan

MacQuarie is innocent!

Has JJB been in prison???

Do you understand the saying?

Yes I do, both had pretty much the similar teams out last year. The older Leeds beat the younger Wigan.

It's cute how Wigan beating Warrington in a GF can somehow be turned into an example of what is wrong with Leeds.

The agenda needs pushing at all times it seems.

I was referring nothing to last nights game.

I simply stated a good young one beats a good old one.

I don't think last year that term could be used to some of Wigans players. Nor do I think it could be used in a couple of cases with Leeds players. Surprising what 12 months later is though.

The "good" is the key.

Really, because it came just after another post going on about how Wigan had more energy last night.

Last year how different were the 2 squads? Yes Leeds were a year younger but so too shockingly were Wigan.

Watch it again. Lee Mossop folds Ratchford in half, and his ankle gets caught in the grass. Hansen hits Ratchford on the hip, and slides off the leg. He doesn't cause the injury.

Stop getting so defensive. You are in danger of moving towards a certain other poster whom continually clutches at straws. I honestly think your better than that.

Have those young Wigan players improved this season on last? I said the key was the "good". A good young one is better than a good old one. You have to have the good in you first.

What Wigan showed is believing in your young ones you have identified, even without winning trophies will still prosper in the end. And Leeds did it too in 2003.

Where is the defensiveness in my previous post? None at all really, I simply asked why good young ones last year didn't beat good old ones but somehow that rule doesn't count for 2012 but does in 2013. Bizarre, and had Leeds players not suffered from injuries so bad this year are you so confident that at 6-6 at the DW that Leeds don't go on to win?

The extra year's experience for Wigan's young forwards was critical; as was the extra year's effects of old Father Time on Leeds' contrasting ancient forwards

Thanks Nantwich. That's your answer Printer, it is really clear, and I made that clear with the comparison to Leeds 2003.

Tomkins and McIlorum didn't play last year, that's why Wigan didn't at least reach the final. The experience gained helped but so did having our best players and pivots on the field.

B*llocks, we won last year because we played better, Wigan won this year because they played better.

This obsession that everything has to be age related is quite pathetic.

People have banged on about certain players being/not being in the team for a few years and that McDermott should go. They need to find any angle to attack to keep their opinion looking strongest......last nights results between two other teams somehow highlighting our problems proving that.

See what I mean about getting all defensive.

Do you not think that Wigan last year with the youngsters were a lot like Leeds in 2003? Leeds also came awfully close then but left with nothing. Year after the Leeds youngsters came of age. Just like the Wigan ones this year.

A good young one is better, once they are good.

Someone having a different opinion doesn't equal defensive.....no matter how many times you say it.

Yes Leeds came within 80 mins in 2003.

Wigan have come within 80 mins in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 & 2012 with a decent core of the squad throughout.

Both times they've overcome Leeds we've been struggling bad with injuries into the playoffs (2010 Peacock, McGuire, Burgess)

So no, not similar.

Having a different opinion is fine, throwing an hissy fit like your post I commented on, is all defensive.

The actual sentence you made was correct though.

With regards above, I suggest you recheck your facts. Leeds also had a core who were playing a few seasons previous, but we were talking specifically about the younger players. Wigan had 10 players out of their 17 last night who were not playing in the 07,08,09 years you quoted, and 8 of them are young.

They backed the same young players from last year, even though they hadn't won, as they believed in them, and worked with them this year and gained success.

What hissy fit? Because I used a swear word? Well I do apologise to the man who is well know on here for using insults when someone disagrees with him.



And did they stick with them through faith? Or does the current SC and strength of the NRL make a big squad overall unrealistic? Ten years ago would they have gone for halfbacks from Salford and HKR and replaced a quality centre like Carmont with a young back rower/centre in Hughes who didn't even play there come the big games?

And still you won't answer the questions that are most key here.

Have the Wigan youngsters who played through 2012 improved for the 2013 side?

Have these youngsters being key to Wigans season?

To respond to the OP, Westwood is a proper rufty-tufty forward, one of the best in SL, who I'd have had in my team any day.
Briers isn't dirty either, maybe he'd like to be but he's more petulant than dirty.

Genuine dirty players, e.g. Sonny Nickle, aren't that common.

Because you never really asked a question, you made a statement that young ones would always beat old ones.

I picked you up on that by asking you a question, why these young ones didn't beat the old ones in 2012. Someone else answered for you that it was that they had a years more experience.

Ok, but wasn't it Matty Smith and Blake Green, hardly youngsters who have picked up the MOM awards in the finals and players that weren't there 18 months ago. Wasn't McIlorum key (and probably MOM), he already had a GF in 2010 so hardly can use needed a years extra experience tag in 2013. Likewise Tomkins, Try scorer Goulding, returning captain and assist in last try O'Loughlin, 14 point haul and ex Man of Steel Richards, game changing tackles both last week and this Hansen, and another previous GF winner Farrell

So have the youngsters been key to Wigan's success? No, not key, yes they've played a part, teams win titles not individuals but no way can you say the youngsters were THE KEY.......unless of course you need to have a pop at the Leeds forwards age.

In the final Wigan had two players over the age of 30. Wire had eight.
To say that the likes of Charnley 22, Farrell 23, Thornley 22, Taylor 22 etc haven't had major influence this year at Wigan is off track imo.

The have had influences indeed, Charnley of course with the amount of tries he had scored, but he did similar in 2012 and scored well in 2011 too. So again what's the difference between 2012 & 2013?
Thornley ended the year well with a try at Wembley and against Leeds, but I never saw last years LC Carmont sent to South Wales or Leigh on Dual Reg or loan.
I as pointed out previously Farrell was already a GF winner....he also was a CC winner, 2 time LLS winner, and appeared in a WCC before the playoff meeting last year.
Taylor might have had a good year but then again Peacock was the only prop on the MOS shortlist.

And two of those mentioned are backs, we aren't exactly in a bad place too with 1 to 5 and the same 'argument' about them having another years experience and being 'good young 'uns' could then too be applied to them.......which leaves us with and leads us back to the repetitive moan......our forwards are too old. But then again some said Peacock should retire at the end of last year and it was a mistake for him to be playing in 2013.

Again I'll say, Wigan beat us and Wire in the playoffs, not because of the age of their team, but simply because they played better, simple.