Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but with the versatility of Grix being able to go into the centres and Michael Monaghan being able to cover at halfback we didn't really need a back on the bench. What happened on Saturday (losing two influential backs for just about half the game) was maybe a once a season event (if that). Losing two forwards is a far more common occurrence.

Centres and wingers need an understanding, the second most important partnership after the halfbacks.

Its better to have a back as a sub who has had rotation with the other 3/4s-wingers and fb over the season than....
Throwing a forward in as a back. This is a poorer solution.

Whilst throwing that back in as a backrow forward is not ideal, the skill leval of understanding the roll is of less importance and would be less disruptive to shape.

Wigan played 4 forwards off the bench. OK Hughes has played centre but he is a second row forward. As you say, this is the poorer solution.

The injuries didn't help Wire's cause for sure but at 16-2 it was defence that was needed not attack. For me the main reason for the defeat was Wire players thinking the game was won. For example Westwood smiling at the camera and Morley waving to Wigan supporters in the North stand. Also I was told by someone who was in the tunnel at half time that the Wire players looked far too confident. This coupled with Wigan upping their intensity in the second half is what swung the outcome. It could also be argued that Wire were lucky to have 13 players on the field for most of the game after the Westwood incident on Green was missed by the officials but lets not spoil a good story with a few facts.

Think positive - at least you haven't lost 5 in a row yet!

why bother hesitating over facts, you've posted some reyt Shite in there.

Smith lost it for you with not having a back on the bench.
If Hodgson was fit he should have played, how can you leave a big game player out of a big game unless he isn't fit? Ratchford to the bench.
Smith decision to run the penalty when 16-6 up. A successful kick would have regained the momentum for Warrington. Instead the pen was run and Bridge tackled into touch 2nd play. Wigan have the set and get a pen for not being square at the ptb. Wigan scored 6 pts from that set. Running that penalty was a disaster for Warrington.
From McIlorum scoring there was only going to be one winner and everyone in the stadium knew that including the players.
So it turned out.

you answered your own question there sunshine, he wasn't fit.

Gary Schofield states in todays RL Express that he has no idea how Wigan won - then strangely makes no mention of the possible disruptive effect of Warrington's injuries.

I guess that's why he's a pundit and I'm not.

Stevo really hammered it home during commentary, about how our old players, all looked like old tired players.


all 14 of them.

And if the game went exactly as it did but we lost Hill at the end of the first half and Wood at the start of the second rather than Monaghan and Ratchford. Then Harrison and Carvell picked up the same knocks as they did, what use would Ratchford be? Smith would now be being criticized for going into such a big game without four forwards on the bench.

I've no doubt that if Wigan had been 16-2 up before losing Richards and Tomkins, and then had Mossop and Farrell carrying injuries which would normally mean them coming off, they too would have lost quite comfortably no matter how much desire and togetherness they showed.

You cannot plan for every possible scenario. To lose two backs, especially two of our most potent attacking threats, in the one game is unlucky. When that game happens to be the Grand Final you're extremely unlucky.

No team puts a subsitute back on the bench. Ridiculous.

I guess you are a newbie to RL and don't pay attention to who maybe in the bench when Warrington play other teams then.

Good old dummy spit.

Oh yes brand new. Teams always go with four forwards, generally two props, one second row (sometimes with utility value) and a hooker. It has been this way for as long as I can remember.

Why on earth would you plan a change to your back line or anticipate an injury to a back during the game?

Wane had a substitue back, Sam Powell. He decided not to play him.
Outside of warrington the whole of RL knows Hansen's tackle hit Ratchford's hip as does the RFL discip report.
Outside of Warrington everyone knows Westwood would have been sent off if the officials had seen the punch and play stopped then.

As to the mythical event of Tomkins being injured, Charnley to fb, Thornley to right wing and Hughes to left centre.
If Green had not recovered from Westwood's punch then Tomkins would have gone to 6 and Charnley to fb and so on.

IMO it wasn't either injury that cost you the game it was your forwards.
McIlorum's try just after half time was straight through the pack. They looked tired then. The more the game went on it went away from you. Green's try was an identikit try to McIlorums. Straight through the middle of the pack on the try line.
Forwards win games and don't win games.

Well every day is a school day. Here was me thinking it was a team game and all along it is totally down to the forwards if we win or lose.

You should know better, Mark. People like Father Ted and the Electric Gliding Warrior are never wrong and they should be revered by those lesser mortals like ourselves.

In 2013 Wire have played 27 Super League, 2 Play Off games and a Grand Final = 30 games = 120 interchange places.
Ratchford appeared on the bench twice
Chris Bridge four times
O'Brien once.

Carvell, Cooper, Currie, Dwyer, Harrison, Higham, Laithwaite, McCarthy, Michael Monaghan, Morley and Glen Riley filled the rest.

Total of 7 out of 120 (6%) places went to backs. Which bench have you been paying attention to?

For me the game was heading Wigan's way before Ratchford went off. He left at 16-12 I was very confident indeed.

I've wrote in my match report that I think the bottom line difference has been Tony Smith's refusal to back Warrington youth this whole season. You've the oldest squad in Super League and he's just stuck by them yet again. Youngsters have had chances, but have clearly not been given the chance to knock a player out of his position and grasp it for the big games at the back end of the year. That suggests they are not good enough, or lack the mental strength Wigan's kids have. The fact is highlighted by Warrington having ZERO players in that 17 who had both come through your academy system and been given a debut AFTER Tony Smith since he took over, who after all has been there for five seasons now.

9 of that 17 played in the Cup Semi you won five years ago, just four for Wigan. Smith has not trusted your youngsters, who won the Under 20s last season, like Shaun Wane has with our youngsters. In those same five years we played Hughes, Thornley, Crosby, Farrell, Charnley in that final, all having been given a debut during Smiths reign at your place. Trusted by our coaches and more importantly the fact they've been given chances to grasp positions ahead of more experienced players has given them the belief and desire to achieve a league title.

Small margin but I really think if you've got just one or two fresh, but quality, academy produced kids in, I think you'd have won either last or this year. In the end Smith played, pretty much, the same side that failed in 2012. Nothing changed in twelve months and thats ultimately why you failed again.

Interesting thought provoking post bilko

As Bilo says the difference between the 2012 and 2013 sides was minimal, which insidently a few of us were discussing last Friday.

I'm not having that. With hindsight, it's easy to pick the bones out of a defeat. Alan Hansen gets paid tens of thousands every week from the BBC for doing it.

I agree that we should have brought players in at the beginning of the season but not necessarily youngsters, unless they were better what what we've already got. Even successful squads need refreshing if they want to continue their success. The transition to next season would have been easier as well.

But let's have a look at this old team. Apart from a couple of games, they strolled though the league and reached the semi final of the cup. We had a real off day that day but still could have won in the last minute if a pass to Higham(?) would have been six inches or so more forward. But our old team kicked on and made it up to second in the league to put them into a really good place for the play-offs. The old un's then went on to dispose of the current Champions, Leeds; and the League leaders, Huddersfield.

I've not watched the game again but I didn't feel we were in the game during the final but our old team found their way over the line three times and put themselves in a great position at 16-2. So after 2358 minutes of the season, our old team had done enough to be clear in the Grand Final and all looked good. So what happened between that moment and the next 42 minutes. We all know the answer to that, twenty eight unanswered points. Injured players and a couple of unfavourable decisions, combined with the fact that we were up against a very good team, meant it wasn't to be.

I saw a mate on Saturday morning. We asked each other if we though we'd do it. I said I don't know it was too close to call. He said it all depends on how the ball bounces. The missus said it was the second time in two days she'd heard that phrase and didn't understand what it meant.

It turned out that both my mate and her mate were right. For 38 minutes it bounced our way and for 42 minutes it bounced Wigans way. Nothing to do with the age of the squad.

Too many experienced players and not enough youth in the team ..... interesting take on it.

So, we should've played Dwyer at hooker, Riley (G) at prop, Currie at 2nd row, GOB in the halfs, Evans on the wing etc etc - all of whom have played, and played well, in the last couple of seasons, and will feature more and more over the next few....... and we'd of course be sat here with the same people saying "What was Smith doing? Dropping the players who got him to the final and bringing in all those inexperienced youngsters".

Maybe the younger players wouldn't have sustained injuries or tired at the end of the game ... but would they have prevented Wigan from scoring early on? And would they have exploited gaps in the Wigan defence and gotten Wire 16-2 up in the first place? I doubt it.

Bottom line (now my heads cleared and I've watched the game a couple of times) - Those 'oldies' got us 16-2 up with nearly half the game played. A combination of injuries (from whatever cause) and fatigue forced Wire to shuffle players into unaccustomed positions, which caused enough confusion in the ranks for Wigan to take advantage, and they turned the scoreline around, winning the game.

As a coach I'd ask one thing and one thing only - every player gives 100% during their time on the pitch. I can't think of one Wire player that didn't ........

Good post Bob and spot on IMO.

Imagine the bruhaha if Smith had followed Bilko's retrospective advice and not stuck by the team that nearly won the double the previous year? There were a few malcontents over the omission of Hodgson in favour of Ratchford.

Perhaps Smith's 'failure' was to rely too heavilly on the maxim that not only are our players experienced, they are GF experienced and that would prove a deciding factor and an improvement in our fortunes from last year? I for one went along with it and I know its all 'ifs and buts', but, we were hardly a million miles away in the grand scheme of things over the 3 comps.

I must say when we beat Wigan at the HJ a few weeks ago Shane Warne was only too happy to lament the fact that he had experienced players injured & had to fill in with youngsters & that was why they lost.

On that occasion the young lads did him & Wigan proud just as they did in the final & it just goes to show that the strength of a club's academy is vital to its success. The Wigan youngsters were proved to be more than equal to the task.