So again, according to you, what 'years ago season' should he have retired after?

He's not been great this year, but let's not try and rewrite the history books that he wasn't impressive last year and earned his new deal. Let's also not make out like we've been carrying him for a good while either, because we haven't.

Like I said if you believe "one of his best seasons last year" is being involved in 8 tries in total as a halfback we have very different views on what constitutes a good season. He's gone on at the club at least two seasons over where he should be to play the position he's currently playing.

Given our recent recruitment and retention making out his deal proves he was worth it is clutching at straws.

I don't think you will be on your own judging by the size of the crowd at the last home game which cannot be blamed on Covid19 or Lam being the Head Coach.

The problem lies with the present ownership and the running of the club, but sadly, some supporters who come on here cannot face up to the reality that Wigan is now lagging behind Warrington and St Helens which sadly is not just confined to where Rugby League is concerned.

All gone downhill except for the odd season or so since we moved to Whelan's White Elephant which in the eyes of many supporters, the blackest day in the proud history of the club.

No talking about the club and the game of Rugby League in the bars and pubs anymore, hardly any pubs near the Stadium which help to create a match day atmosphere, no proper atmosphere and singing at a game like there was in the days of Central Park,

Not even a World Cup game allocated to Wigan in the coming World Cup and no Internationals and other special games held in Wigan like in the past.

Even some members of the Ian Lenagan Fan Club have now gone very quiet .

The club sadly needs new dynamic leadership and finance if it is to remain the top club and drawing the biggest crowds on this side of the Pennines.






.

Having reflected on the performance and leaving Smith out of it as I’ve mentioned my thoughts on him on another thread I think there were positives from last night but also some big negatives which are affecting our ability to win games.

The middles have come in for lots of criticism, and rightly so, however Singleton I thought was outstanding particularly in his first spell. He took on the role of senior prop and really dominated at times. Harvard put in his normal spell the other middles were poor going forward and Clubb may as well hand a target on his head in defence against in and around the ruck.

Our attack is basically get it to Hastings. It’s so predictable. Our halves are simply link men who provide the ball to him. Which ever side he is on the ball goes there meaning basically we telegraph everything we do.

Powell, and this is a tough one as he is a warrior, is killing us with his one dimensional play. As good as he was last year and the improvements he made he’s gone backwards this year. His delivery is slow and inaccurate and there is no craft around the ruck. The markers can get out and pressure the receiver because again his lack of threat enables them to not really have to worry about him. When Bourouh came on the delivery was quicker and he offered a threat from 9.

Rotation of subs. This was really poor. I can’t for the life of me understand his use of the prop rotation last night after half time. When we needed to ramp things up in the second half on waddles 10 minute Tony who huffs and puffs his way round the pitch. I’ve no idea how he gets a game over Clark however when he did come on in the second half he just got in the way. I recall 1 set, maybe the Mamo try one, where he took 3 drives when we were camped on their line. He got dominated each time, generated slow PTB and gave us 0 platform. I cannot understand why we didn’t give him and Byrne a spell straight after half time then have our meter making props in Havard and on the night Singleton go for the last 30. It was like we were doing subs by numbers again looking at the clock regardless of what was going on, on the field.

The use of Bourouh was also pointless, despite our lack of threat at 9 and basically a waste of a bench spot.

Couple of observations from outside your Wigan bubble.

Smith needs taking out of the spotlight now. He's shot at the moment. Personally I don't think he is quite the player that you were all touting him to be at the start of the year.

Leluai offers nothing in attack but you all know that as does every team you play against.

I would suggest a big issue is Hastings' game management on attack. I can't believe how often he gets tackled in possession on the fourth tackle after taking the ball in on a pretty standard hit up. Whether this is purposeful or not on his behalf it does mean he's not under pressure to put the play on on the last tackle which just falls to Smith when the defence can spot this easy as the other options have just been tackled or is Leluai. I wonder whether what appears an increased number of random kicks on the last by forwards are also a result of this.

Being unintentionally kicked isn't a penalty, no. They were correct to play on as no tackle had been completed. They would have had no way to restart the game otherwise. I do think they should have gone to the video ref to check whether there was anything intentional from Charnley though.

I think people aren't realising (or are wilfully ignoring) that Marshall was getting medical assistance as the break was happening. Putting time off mid-play wouldn't have got him treatment any quicker than he did get it.

100% he should have gone to the video ref.

Hicks doesn't learn and never will. He lost Saints a CC final a few years back because of his cock sure attitude. This is the problem with these guys - they are too protected and in turn they are turning into mini divas who want the attention to be on them. His billy big balls attitude of 'look at me making decisions' is pathetic. When anything is said either by coaches, owners or fans on social he's melts.

What a stupid rule btw. You can accidently kick someone in the head and it's not a pen, but you accidentally tackle someone high and get a penalised.

I'd say the difference is that if you tackle someone high, it's always going to be at least reckless, because you were trying to make contact with them, you've just done it in the wrong place. I would hope that Charnley wasn't trying to make contact with Marshall at all. If he gets penalised for that, then he would also definitely be red carded, by the way, which I'm sure people would be equally up on arms about.

I'm certainly not saying that Charnley did it on purpose. I'm also not expecting a red, or anything. A pen would have been fine.

There's plenty of situations in the game where accidents happen and they, in turn, lead to pens. Someone falling into a tackle & being hit high or being taken out in the air etc. You can't one week say "concussion prevention is the highest importance to the game" and then say a boot to the head isn't worthy of a pen.

Whilst I don’t think it was at all deliberate I do think it was reckless.

Players have an obligation to protect themselves and they also have an obligation to protect their opponent.

Charnley didn’t.

For me it should have been a penalty but ultimately it wasn’t and it’s yesterday’s news.

Despite Lam’s comments and what seemed to be an improvement in attitude we didn’t deserve to win that game regardless although I have to say is the most frustrating performance I’ve seen from us in a long time as the platform was laid for the first time in a long time and we looked to have forgotten how to capitalise.

You can't just stick a penalty on a kick to the head if it's intentional or reckless. It's so dangerous that it's got to be a red card if you're deeming Charnley to be at fault. If it's completely accidental then it's play on. Similar to when a defender cops a stray boot after a tackle when the attacker is wrestling to stand and play the ball. People generally accept those, it's the exact same principle.

Sez you. You don't know what's going on inside other people's heads, and neither do I. But i am certainly cautious about going to games, especially away games, and I find it hard to believe I'm the only one. Now you can argue that people's concerns and worries are unfounded, but that's not the point, They surely exist, and will continue to do so for quite some time.

Well the hubby and I aren’t chancing away games this season we will wait till things are a little clearer by next year

The difference with the high tackle is that you have intended to tackle. Had Charnley tried to kick the ball and instead accidentally kicked his head he would have been in trouble. However he didn’t try and kick the ball it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and the decision was correct in my view. I have to say I would have gone to the video ref but I don’t think the outcome would have been any different.

Yet 2 weeks ago you were saying the ref had to stop a game because he needed to get the medical people on?
Now I know I'm being a bit disingenuous - but the principal is the same
In future when players go down with head knocks as I said on the other thread there should be no need to stop the game as the medical people have all the permissions to enter the field of play. Especially when later in the game we were stopping the game for Cramp! Cramp! for gods sake!!!!

As for the incident - Agree completely it was unintentional.
The ref should have gone to the VR irrespective (And they should look at the Ratchford Hastings coming together).

My opinion - It's a penalty
However - All chip paper now

Thank you. I'm not the only one who sees it.

Sorry to keep going on at Grimmy, it isn't personal, more annoyed at the institutions that change their agenda to suit the latest f up. One min it's all about head injuries, even when they are unintentional, the next it's play on when there's a guy lay on the floor with a potential head injury.

Absolutely, but we need a tackle competed first so that we have somewhere to restart the game from. If Mamo gets tackled 1 metre from our try line with a try sure to be scored on the next play I would still expect time to go off there for a head injury even though he would be nowhere near play. The problem they have is that no tackle has been completed so we don't have a restart if we stop it there and then. It's just sod's law that instead of someone diving on the ball and getting tackled so we can have time off straight away, we instead get a full length try with a man down with a head injury in back play, which of course looks terrible. The medical people were on by the way, they (rightly) don't wait for time off. He's being dealt with during the break.

Going off topic here slightly I appreciate
But WTF!

Why stop the game if he is 80mtrs away being treated? How does that improve his treatment etc.!!!
If it is serious medical people can call play etc.

But because we do stop the game we get players Feigning head injuries (Not last night, I'm talking about my observations of the 4/5 games recently where the game stopped 12/15 times).

As for restarting the game - Isa wasn't tackled when he bumped Philbin off, I know another player came towards him and put hands on him when Isa stops himself, but he wasn't tackled. Ref stopped game and gave that Isa was tackled.

Not knowing how to restart a game is no reason not to stop the game!
And irrespective of that - Not going to the VR was the big mistake

What would have happened after that may be debatable - because no matter what the refs will circle and say they would have given play on
A Mate of mine was involved in a decision that Thaler got wrong about 5/6 years ago, Thaler tried to convince him why he was right, rounding up all the officials to back him up, he didn't, his career ended shortly afterwards.

And yet despite the concern over head injuries were not going to stop the game, because we don't know how to Restart the game!
Astounding!

Well maybe they need a rule for how to restart the game when it is stopped when the ball is live then, but I promise you that was 100% the reason the game wasn't stopped there. They will always stop at the next tackle for a head injury or when the doctor comes on (both of which happened) regardless of where it is on the pitch. Of course you and I know that once teams know they can go down holding their heads that the game will be stopped immediately (rather than at the next tackle) there will be all sorts of abuse of that system. I don't believe the Wire fans that Marshall was feigning injury, but it's easy to see how you could abuse such a rule if we made one. Just go down holding your head as soon as any break is made and you have saved a try.

I can't remember the Isa one. If you know when in the game it was I'll take a look. The game was bloody dross to be honest so I was losing interest!

Towards the end of the 1st half. Isa runs it in, collides with Phillbin who drops straight down and play is correctly stopped.

Goes back to the Hudds game, Powell is injured and nothing happens but Jones goes down and play gets stopped.

Just wait one second - Your mis interpreting my point
I'm not saying the game should have been stopped (And thus I am not saying that players/teams will go down to stop a try being scored) - I'm saying that you have previously said that the game should be stopped for a Head injury, but now it should only stop if the next tackle is completed?
How does that help in the care of the injured player, and f it doesn't why do we stop the game at EVERY Head injury point
Another case of people being brainwashed into one way of thinking, bringing a rule in to try and cover every eventuality that actually creates more problems than it solves.

As for how to restart the game - That shouldn't be the consideration
However
You've admitted that Hicks should have gone to VR and that's the crux of the issue- And I don't think anyone (Certainly only the most biased would) would disagree he should have. I would love a little bet that if he had we would be having a far different conversation - Because a player "In possession" was injured by what (Although maybe not illegal) wouldn't be classed as Legal i.e. you won't see anything anywhere that says it's ok to do that

they could have restarted the game the same as they did with Philbin, Isa wasnt tackled but the game was stopped

To be fair Isa and everyone else stopped where as with the Marshall incident everyone carried on

so could have restarted the game the same as there was no tackle complete....just because people stopped the ref was the one who actually stopped the game