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

But that's DaveO opinion of what IL did it so it must be right!

Bear in mind when we had 5 props I also asked the question if there not good enough then How many do we want!

I don't believe O'Carroll is good enough but if he had got rid of him he would have been slated again!
Coley & Fielden aint performing, certainly in Fieldens case, not up to the level that his wages warrant, but what do we do???

He can't make them leave, He can't reduce their money currently!!!!

What if they have tried to sign other props but they wouldn't come for the money we had available????
What if they just didn't want to come?????

So we had the option of signing 2 x backs that did want to come and we could get them under the cap by whatever means for this season, it doens't mean he could get the right Priops!

Or

He could just have got it Wrong!

Does DaveO know factually 100% gauranteed which one of these is the truth??

We can all sit back and see that were short of Grunt up front, putting it right isn't always a Quick thing to do and not always possible immediately!

The stadium fiasco is a memory that will live in the mind of wigan fans for a long long time.The biggest name in rugby league made to play out of thier own county by the ex owner still gets on my nerves now.

On the playing side, there isnt really much he can do, he took on the contracts when he took over the club. I await next season when several players contracts expire and the end of the current season.

The big mistake he made was the Stadium cockup last season, moving us to Widnes for the play off game will stick long in peoples memories.

Aldo he mentioned in the most recent fans forum that it was his fault that they did not get the fixture to the stadium management in time to book the GF spot this season.

No, but either the club needs to want to get rid, like Gleeson, or you need to unsettle the player enough by offering them a big wage packet. I think Leneghan is trying to get away from that way of working though.

Didn't you also allegedly enquire about Moore too?

Correct. What else do you want us to do? Stick with the 5 under performing players for the duration of their contracts and say Ho-hum when the pack gets battered yet again?

We either try and loan out one or two of them or if there is (as I believe there was) room under the cap, we get an extra prop in and simply drop the worst of them. Then when that players contract is up it isn't renewed.



What do you mean "more and more players"? A single top class prop would make a great deal of difference to the side. I'll say it again but if not signing Phelps, Roberts and Smith meant we could have signed a prop thus leaving Fielden in sat in the stands that would have been good business.

Such a move is not against any rules. It is perhaps a bit radical but so what?



But that has failed and so the alternative is what?



The situation is our pack problems have not been sorted out and action needs to be taken. This is not a new problem either but instead of addressing it, IL has presided over predominantly the recruitment of backs. I guess that is why his failure to sort out the pack is leading the poll that started this thread.

Dave

Players can only be sent out on loan if they're prepared to go - so it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Also, I'm not convinced that Phelps and Smith's wages combined would have given us enough leeway to sign a top-class prop. Not if you're talking top class in the realms of Webb, O'Meley etc. Combine Roberts' wage with that, and maybe ... I agree that signing Amos Roberts may have been hasty, and thus far hasn't seemed to pay off. But I'm not sure that a prop of Carvell's standard would have been so valuable to us that I'd be happy to see our back division shortened by 3, including a speedster like Roberts.

All that said and done, in a salary capped world I think it'd be bordering on the silly to sign another prop, giving you a total of 6, when, at the very most, the coach only seems inclined to field 3.

The real problems with our pack seem to stem from Fielden being finished before his time and Feka showing a complete inability to get fit. Sorry, but in that respect these problems come more from the previous administration than the current one.

You cant just loan or get rid of players, you need someone to take them off your hands, we got lucky with Mathers, as only a team coached by smith who got the best out of him and knows what he can do would have taken him on recent form.

This is not an option with fielden as nobby is here!

But lets say for instance Bradford would take fielden back.
1st you have to convince them to pay him the same(which you would have to be stupid to do) or he wouldnt go and just sit out his contract, i know i would.

Maybe IL has got something in the pipe line, quite a few big earners are off contract this year and i cant see bailey or coley getting another contract. So perhaps we will sign a prop who can do a bit.

And as for fielden, what club in their right mind is going to offer him a contract on anything near the wage he is supposed to be on.

Quite frankly if i were a chairman, i would be offering about 40k a year for him. As i would be shocked if prescott and o'carroll are on that much (between them)

Are we talking what should of been done or what is possible now?

It's quite clear now we can't just sign another prop and sit Fielden in the stand but the point I was making was if we had not over-recruited in the back we probably could have and that is a reason why the is leading the poll.

Dave

Pack weakness for me.

I dont see how players not performing is IL's fault.

Granted i wouldnt have signed Phelps (although i do like him) Robberts or Riddell over a Stand off to replace Barrett, however we did sign a former Daly M winner who was predicted to do big things before he became unwell.

However we seem to have a trend where players are underperforming here and i cant blame IL for that! I think it comes down to attitude and coaching to be honest.

In a perfect world i would let go

fielden (tripe),
coley(never rated him),
bailey (doesnt do enough for the supposed brass he is on),
phelps (quite like him but dont want him holding anyone back),
robberts (vialeki Mk II),
pryce (I cant put into words how much i dispair of this lad)
and smith (to many problems to ever be what he could have been)

Sign a stand off, two brasters for the front row, and a full back, and let pat go back on the wing and promote a mossop to a bit more game time.

However its not a perfect world and we are stuck with the pack we have like it or not.

If for instance next year we still recruit backs then i will be complaining with the best of them! (thats you dave

)

I'm really biased towards Ian Lenagan. I think he's the best thing to happen to Wigan for a very long time. His predecessors Whelan & Robinson were dreadful for many and various reasons. IL is getting things right.

He's virtually had to build the club from bottom up with not very much money. We didn't even make the £4m minimum franchise level.
He has to start a retail set up now we have the merchandising.
The marketing, already good, is getting better with Mick H on board.
IL's own personal bias towards local produced players and him taking on additional training and fitness staff is what we have all wanted for years.
The accelerate squad is a great innovation and will be worth it's weight when those players develop fully.
As far as recruitment goes he brought in a fair number of players bearing in mind none of the high earners have been off contract in the 17 months he's owned the club. He can't spend money we haven't got.
With all that he's had to do it would have been impossible not to have made mistakes. He should have brought in at least one prop but he never saw it that way from the start.
At his first F Forum IL said "Why do we need props we have eight".
I looked at a fellow fan that I know and we just said almost together, "were ducked, well and truly ducked if he's not bring in any props" or something similar.
That, IMO a mistake, doesn't detract from the great job IL has done since buying the club. I think overall he's getting it right and will bring us back to winning trophies. Also in the not too distant future.
Easy to pin point mistakes but not easy to achieve all that IL has!

Signing Roberts was a big mistake IMO and the terms he has signed for us on are dreadful (4 years)

Just not a necessary signing when we had plenty of players who could cover the position and potential brilliance in the reserves (Ainscough) waiting to come in.

Roberts does seem a bad signing and to a lesser extent Riddell. When Tommy & Ainscough seem able to play those positions perfectly well, but, we cant do anything about that now, which means wherever possible we have to be ruthless and facilitate the release/transfer of players where possible to develop the squad.

One of my major issues with the team at the moment is that they just don't look to have the fitness or power to compete for the full 80 mins against top sides - do you think we have the right people/systems in place now and is it just a matter of time before we see a rise in standards of conditioning?

Again, im not sure how much of this is IL's fault. He isnt a proffessional in this area, so im assuming (and you know what they say about assupmtions), that his wasnt the final decision as to who they employed in this role, i would guess that forshaw had the final say in this as he is the top man at the club with regards to this.

However i do agree that we a lacking in conditioning, and is a point i raised last year at about the same time. We just dont seem to hit the ground running with regards to our conditioning, or our overall performance as a team.

Out of all the teams who are in the league from last year, we are the only ones i have seen aside from bradford (who have injury problems) who are worse than last year!

I would agree to that. I voted for the pack weaknes simply because it's a fact that a) it's weak and b) IL could have done something about it. However I wouldn't like this thread to become a 'criticism thread' as I feel he has done an excellent job so far, pretty much with one hand tied behind his back on most issues. Most of the criticisms have mitigating factors attached so to take them in isolation is probably not the correct way to view them. If the poll were 'are you overall happy with IL's performance to date and confident he is taking the club in the right direction' then I would have say, so far yes.

I voted for extending Nobles contract by 12 months.

So much that is wrong with the current Wigan side comes back to some bad decisions made by Noble who clearly doesnt not know how to build a side.

Mistakes that Nobles made last season have been followed by more errors this season ranging from poor signings to poor tactical decisions.

All of this has been suppoted by IL and you do wonder what Nobles has to do to get the sack, perhaps we just dont want to pay him off.

I think you're viewing this with a touch of hindsight, especially in regard to Riddell.

Riddell would have been signed before the season ended, how many were calling for Leuluai to be moved to hooker at that time? I do realise some thought he may have had the qualities to play there (as I've said before I'm not sure he'll be that good), but until NZ moved him there during the WC ,don't forget he started that tournament as SH, the idea wasn't the shoe in it appears to be now.

The signing of Roberts doesn't surprise me (bar the length of his contract) either really, he's better than Phelps and Pryce, and what if Ainscough had sunk rather than swam, which was possible? The resigning of Mathers was the deal that surprised me.

Your not a million miles off!

Tommy was played as 2nd 9 for last 3rd of last season and Riddell ad been signed already by then, Plus Tommy has mainly been going into 9 25 mins or so into the game, would he have the saem impact from the start?

I don't understand were all this criticism of Roberts comes from, yes he did look a little off the pace 1st 4/5 games but his last 4/5 he's looked sharp (Ok he's not coming in off the Wing to Acting HB and doing a Vainakolo but how many can!) and IMO I think in Gleeson/Roberts we will have a Great Centre/Wing Partnership for the next 3 1/2 years!

The AMthers thing was a strange one I agree but IMO it's the Smith one that has puzzled me!
I can't see a 6/7 in Tommy & Timmy (Not enough Pace or size) and told IL the same, I'm sure with the Mathers/Smith Money and the extra quota spot that would have left us we could ahve looked anywhere for a 6 and got him!

I know were a prop short as well (A Good Prop BTW as we have enough, we just don't have the right one!) but to be IMHO only 2/3 players short of being a VERY Good team after only 18 months in charge I don't think is too bad.

I'm not in favour of owners/management trying to be friends with fans, keeping them upto date with every development at the club, they should be confident in their own leadership and be judged on that performance.