Amos Roberts to full back?

I think anybody would have done what Farrell did 5 yards from the try line with Burrow running at you, to be honest Burrow ran straight for Farrell knowing he would be offside, again big players doing crucial things at the right time, Leeds did a lot of that last night and we didnt.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up, just cant believe it has taken until now!

I disagree. Had we done that we'd have knocked on from the kick off and they'd have scored anyway. You can't look at it and say we could have had 2 more points so we should have taken that option when the game from that point of would have panned out in a completely different way.

What lost us the game was having no composure whatsoever and being completely clueless at times, especially when leading with not much time left. The players didn't have a clue what they were supposed to do and messed it up.

Could not agree more, SW contradicts himself in team selections.

SO is not a 9 nor is he a 6 yet SW played him a 9, when TL was injured SO played at 6, he was average at best. Last night again he was played at 9 with Farrel at 13. It takes something away from the strucutre of the team, you could tell when the ball was moved wide it didn't look slick at all and missed SO as a link out wide.

The main issue here is he is playing SO a 9 because MM is suspended hence shuffling the team around, yet when Tomkins was injured he chose to pick Murphy from the U20's at full back and promote from within...he has played one SL game against Bradford to mind - terrible decision on reflection.

Personally I think Pat at Full Back and Thornley on the wing with either Smith or TL at 9 in a game of this magnitude woud have been better. If your going to 'shuffle' the team around then do it and be committed or if his philosphy is 'youth driven' then bring Logan Tomkins in as a specialist Hooker on the bench.

I just think he contradicts himself with his coaching philosophy and tends to go through spells having bringing youth in and then you dont see them for a few games i.e. Crosby, Spencer, L Tomkins.

Either way Murphy dropped a vital bomb from which the winning penalty resulted, I hope this helps Murphy and his development rather than hinders his confidence.

personally i think it had something to do with the wind.

maybe bombing him in the first half in easier conditions may have boosted his confidence had he aught them.
dont think it was a half time decision tbh...think it was pre planned before the kick off.
it worked anyway......but lets not crucify Murphy...Sam would probably messed it up as well

Didnt start this thread to do that mate, all i am saying is that if Wane would have gone with his head and not his heart, putting Richards at full back ESPECIALLY in those rainy, windy conditions we would be making plans for Old Trafford next week.

I think it was massive mistake picking a young Inexperienced lad at fullback in suck a high pressure game. I thought murphy looked very good with ball in hand.

have people forgotten how much less penetrative we were without richards on the wing. also, to put it in real terms, the suggestion is to put richards who is not a fullback and hasnt played as such in over two years at fullback in place of someone whos been regularly playing fullback for two years, regardless of experience, and in addition to this, put a player who is essentially equally as untried as murphy on the wing and not even a winger, where he obviously wouldnt have dropped a kick as murphy did. seriously guys?

There was a possibility to exploit whoever was chosen to fill in. Sinfield could have exploited Thornley's lack of pace by kicking behind him for Jones-Bishop to chase; he could have exploited Gelling's poor positioning or Gelling could have done what he did in the cup game and fail miserably competing for a cross field kick with Jones-Bishop.

He took a risk with a young player who have been pretty much faultless at fullback for the under 20's. Murphy made errors facing kicks that most fullbacks would have trouble with. Tomkins struggled with similar kicks, I remember Amos Roberts struggled with high bombs in a game against Huddersfield.

Murphy would have been much more comfortable had the defence simply done its job and put pressure on the kicker. It was blatantly obvious what they needed to do and it's pretty basic stuff. When a ball is up in the air swirling around it's going to be difficult for any fullback and the job of the defence is to not allow the kicker to be able to put up kicks with all the time in the world.

The biggest fault was the teams failure to put pressure on the kicker after being shown exactly how important that was by Wire in the challenge cup final.

Completely agree. The fact that people are suggesting we would have been in a better position with any other combination is farcical.

Richards scored a try that another winger might not have done, so with Pat at fullback we may have lost with more points. Just get off Murphy's back. He was not the reason we lost.

I think the issue of positioning or pace is a moot one to be honest. An experienced player would have no doubt read the situation enough to leave a ball that was flying through the air with the chase some distance behind it to bounce out. Ultimately, it's the coaches call to put the player in that position, Murphy was only playing the game as he reads it and cannot be faulted in his approach to last nights game. It's just one of those things. Ultimately to me it hits home particularly hard how I've felt about the regular SL season for a few years now, 27 weeks of largely pointless games jockeying for a very slight advantage in a 3 week knockout competition.

Yep - couldn't agree more. 27 weekly rounds are pointless and a waste of money.

No they would be 100% correct.

Murphy wasn't being pressurised by anyone when he dropped the crucial kick so the idea it was the teams fault for not pressurising Sinfield does not wash.

Pat is one of the best takers of a high ball in the game and he would IMO have first of all not had Sinfield booting the ball at him all night whereas Muprhy effectively had a sign round his neck "kick at me I am a rookie" and he would have taken that kick easily. We'd be talking about about what a lame idea it was of Sinfield to try it had Pat been there not bigging him up as the purveyor of impossible to take kicks.

Also the idea Sinfield would have kicked at someone else if Pat has been at FB and that would also be a problem, no it wouldn't. It would have been far more preferable and is in no way as dangerous.

Why on earth people can't simply acknowledge Wane was an idiot to pick a rookie in a semi final at FB I don't know. It is something a coach should never do. Ever. As was proved on Friday night.

Why? The fact is we’ll never know, and that’s the point you can’t just say what others say is “farcical” when either way we’ll never know.

Charnley is the man for the FB job. Incredibly safe under the bomb, as proven against Leeds even with Hall attacking the same flank.
Pat plays FB like an old fashioned FB, not linking into the line ala Sam, Slater, Hodgson. Pat doesn't play second receiver role. Charnley, when covering for an injured Sam v Cats played as a second receiver.
Charnley has the pace, and quick step to cause all kinds of trouble in broken play, similar to Sam.
Josh is a dangerous player love to seem him with his hands on the ball more. FB provides that.


As we lack ideas and pace in the halves I certainly would to be looking to see Sam return to 6.

Can't believe I'm about to say this but I agree with DaveO



Full backs dropping balls is forgivable, what isn't is sheer stupidity of trying to make an impossible diving catch when there was no opposition players around. Hopefully harsh lesson learned and if he does play for Wigan again he won't make the same mistake.

Charnley at fullback would be similar to zak hardaker, good running in a straight line. He cant run the lines necessary just yet nor can he pass well enough, just like hardaker. Would be a solid fullback, but would need to develop his game.

He's a big enough lad, great pace and he's only 21 don't forget, plenty of time to learn and develop the position. If he's given a few games at FB next season i'd be delighted, Josh is a class act

I posted something similar when we discovered that Sam was crocked.

He appears to have all the attributes needed, but i would like to see him play a game or two before making final judgment.

Then again, we Wigan fans seem to be obsessed with changing players positions



The biggest benefit would be to allow him more opportunities to get the ball in his hand.

I blame Gelling.



Seriously though, while he makes mistakes we could have done with one of his 150 metres gained stints to help out our beaten pack...

It's an interesting idea and we definitely need to get Sam playing at stand-off next year.

Says who exactly? How do you possibly know he would be like Zak Hardaker?

the example you used was that of him playing at fullback against catalans and what i saw of him there indicated he would be similar to zak hardaker. but i guess to put it in perspective, this is the zak hardaker who has just won young player of the year after playing half the season in an unfamiliar position. but zak hardaker isnt fluid in the role yet, nor would i expect charnley to be without a decent preseason of preparation. i cant imagine a sam tomkins style move where he became a sudden revelation. but then again i guess sam already had more to his game at that point. and this isnt a dig at charnley or your point, i just think charnley at fullback wouldnt offer quite as much as say sam or brett hodgson. but as has been mentioned, he is only 21.

i think i argued with myself a bit there