Please see my "Turning the Ship around" Thread!

Please show me ANy Chairman or Club that Hasn't made mistakes!

Well 39% disagree with you there.








This was very emotive at the time, still is in fact, regardless of fault. To have left it out of the poll would have been glaringly obvious.




I agree, tremendous signing, just had this down as a filler. Although one person doesn't agree on the poll.

Exactly.

For every negative under Lenagans ownership theirs been plenty of positives and he's doing a fine job.

I had my doubts about him not wanting to splash out on big name players but the signing of Gleeson involving a transfer fee proved he'll pay for the right quality.

I'm happy with how things have gone since he's been here especially when you consider the mess the club was in when he took over.

The stadium fiasco was a mistake because when buying the club he failed to secure adequate rights to play at the JJB and failed to warn the supporters in advance that this kind of thing could happen.

Darrell Goulding Registered on here then is he??

Have we ever had a "what's the best thing IL has done since he got here" poll ?

I honestly think if IL went on holiday for a fortnight and found a cure for cancer on the day he came back, there'd be people on here wondering why he didn't do it before he went.

Couldn't agree more. All the other things can be rectified, the stadium issue sent a message of weakness, and we will continue to be exploited.

First of all, I'm very happy that IL is in charge of Wigan RL and I'm confident of the future of the club whilst the club is in his hands.

My only criticism was the stadium fiasco. It felt that we as a club accepted the decision by Whelan and that we were happy to go along with it. We didn't seem to publicly challenge the decision and aknowledge that Dave Whelan was out of order.

He wasn't

Yes he was!

He lied, and acted like a 3 year old throwing his dummy out of the pram.

I dont ses how IL can be blamed for the pack being weak.

We have 5 props 3 experienced ones who 2 of those are not performing over a long term basis now.

That is the coaches fault for not getting them to perform, so i suppose thats a argument for the extending nobles contract being a mistake.

With regards to the stadium 'fiasco' he hasnt fully bought the club yet, and wont be doing so for the forseable future, so i think it would be a bit rich of him telling whelan what he could and couldnt do about the pitch. Although i do think DW was being a bit awkward, but i guess you dont make that much money by being anything but.

Because it was clearly his decision not to recruit another prop. He was quoted soon after he took over as saying we had 7 props on the books (he was IIRC including a couple of junior players in that) so would not be signing another.

Since then we have not recruited another prop but have signed several backs.

I think he evidence is pretty clear.



I agree the coach should get them (and the whole team!) to perform but the fact remains 99% of posters on here have said we a need a new prop for about two years and when IL took over he said we had enough of them.

Dave

But even with only 5 props, if they all gave 100% and played like we know they can (mentioning no names) then we would be able to cope until the end of the season. As it stands we desperately need cover in that area because they are not of the standard they should be

Dave,

Are you saying 5 props isnt enough?

Granted i wouldnt have signed Robberts, as i think he is Vialeki Mk II, just stands there and doesnt really look for work or look interested, however with Gleason that may change.

I wouldnt have signed riddell either, as while higham isnt great, we didnt really need a 9 as much as we needed a 6.

That for me is the biggest let down, we new barrett was leaving and did nothing about it!

The 5 props we have are as good on paper as any other front 5, i do realise that the game is played on grass not paper, but again i dont see how this is IL's fault that fielden is poop and Coley has only started playing come contract time!

I wouldn't say it was IL fault for ignoring recruitment of a good pack. I am sure IL would have passed some of this responsibility to BN as he brought in Fielden who is the main cause of the problem.

BN is ultimately responsible for this problem because he has maxed out the budget for the pack with a prop who can be a good squad player but not the leader we really need.

IL will probably need a large chunk of the salary cap for this 'leader' which probably isn't available at the moment. This hasn't been helped by the recruitment of Amos, Gleeson & Riddell. These players have come available at the wrong time when we really needed a leader but I agree with IL decision to recruit these players now and not let the opportunities pass.

IL will be looking for long term solutions. The backs are now sorted! The forwards need more recruitment / replacements. We can't have everything all at once and we need to take our recruitment opportunities when we can, even if this leaves us with a short term problem. I can't criticise IL yet. If we don't recruit a leader when the opportunity comes available I will then start my criticism.

Weren't all the 5 props under contract at the time IL took over????????

What was he supposed to do then? Sign 2 x more and have weaknesses in the Backs????????

he could have off loaded the poor playters and brought in better by now.
he managed it with gleeson and mathers. off loading mathers was a minor miracle. so he should certainly be able to do it with the forwards . thats just my opinion anyhow

Sign 1 prop and Gleeson rather than Mathers and Roberts. I think Roberts will come good for us but not a player we need.

That's about the size of it. The advantage to having roberts is it offers the chance of rotating the backs as form/fatigue/tactics (i know i know) demands. However, it's a luxury in the backs when we need the basics in the pack.

This is really the issue. They are not performing and so it is THE issue that needed sorting out. Packs win matches, the backs decide by how many.

A stubborn, "We have 5 props so I ain't buying any more" attitude does not solve the problem.

We have signed backs we don't really need or could do without which are IMO Roberts, Phelps and maybe Smith as well. That ought to be enough cap space for at least one top class prop.

So what if we signed another top class prop we ended up with Fielden sat in the stands watching a prop equivalent to his former self doing the job for us?

Better that than having a really good back line that is running around behind a beaten pack. Barrett was wasted in the two year she was here IMO.

IMO the signing of Roberts was completely an IL thing and so given the pack is poop I think it is fair to say IL can take the blame for not rectifying the situation with better recruitment.

I am sure IL thinks the players we do have in the pack should do better but he must have realised by now this isn't going to happen.

Dave

Which props would you have signed that would have been a marked improvement on what you've got though? Not that many have changed clubs that would have made a great deal of difference and didn't Carvell price himself out of a deal with you?

Wigan did try to sign Carvell (they actually thought they had got him) but then wouldn't get involved in a THIRD upping of the price, and left the auction.

The way Carvell priced himself out of the deal if correct (upping the price several times) is one issue but the signing of Gleeson for a six figure sum shows players are available for the right price.

They don't have to be out of contract. Fielden wasn't.

Dave

You make it sound criminally negligent by the chairman. Yet look at what you're actually saying: we've got 5 props, but they're not working out so we need to buy more.

Where does that mentality end?

If you've got underperforming players, you don't keep on buying new men for that position, with more and more men sitting in the stand.

He inherited a situation where we had 5 props on contract. At least two of those props are, or recently were, international standard. Surely it's a better option to try to get the coach to bring them back to form rather than spending money on yet more props?

To call it a stubborn attitude is one way to look at it, but you could also call it's a realistic appraisal of a difficult situation.

Very true Cruncher.

It gets to the stage were you have to make the best out of what you've got. If so called less talented coaches like Kear can do it with players who have never reached the heights the likes of Fielden have then why can't Noble?

Wigan is a team that is majorly underperforming for the players it has. IL can't keep getting new ones all the time and sooner or later it’s going to be the coach that has to leave.

I think that’s one a lot of people can agree on