We needed a Jamie Peacock, James Graham, Stu Fielden (in his prime) type player on Saturday.

You guys are very fickle

for me Wigan and Wire are and have been all season the 2 stand out SL teams ,recently Wigan have been the team to beat , probably before Saturday the team nobody could beat , you have been playing very good fast rugby in Shaun Wane you have a coach that hates losing ,a couple of your players didnt seem fit on Saturday , but you will still finish as League Leaders thats my prediction anyway , you have a very good team , some of the best youngsters coming through , nowt to worry about , a Wigan v Wire Grand Final a great prospect , and a great spectacle for RL .

a Wigan v Wire Grand Final a great prospect


Maybe, But not if it is no contest and we roll over again. God knows why they are sh*t scared of Warrington. It's embarrassing.

Nothing new in the Soward story. Same as two weeks ago.
Looks like Martin Richards has been asked for some column inches minutes before going to press and he dug up a previous article.

We do need a rough house prop but there aren't many around.
A couple of years ago on here we were suggesting Carl Webb. Webb retired and perhaps due to the sanitisation of the game players like him are now gone, bar Morley.
Last Saturday Smith had a fully fit squad and a choice of forwards, Wane didn't. SW has had forwards on the sick list with Fielden out all season, Dudson out, Prescott only playing 8 or 9 games. You can't have players, especially props out and not miss them. If Wire had Morley, Carvell and Hill missing he wouldn't have much left in the props dept.
Wane took a risk with experienced players who weren't fit instead of younger men who are. Crosby and Spencer would have been worked over big time by the Wire props and maybe got injured. He played the best team he had and they were well beaten.
As for Sam at 6. Yeah great! He then has to make 26 tackles a game instead of 3. Wire forwards would have targeted him all 80 mins and Sam doesn't have the hit tackle that Tommy does. Played at 6 last Saturday and Sam could have got injured.
Not into the blame game on this one, Wane played the best he had given the circumstances.
Perhaps the players are responsible for the performance, not the coach?

Your right a couple of Chris Hill’s in our front row would have been nice!

I'm not calling for Tomkins to move from fullback but this reasoning baffles me - 'We can't play Tomkins at 6 because he might get hurt'.

Finch is the most important player in the team and the most influential player in the team so by that reasoning surely we shouldn't be playing him at 6 either because he might get hurt?

Tomkins played 6 for a while and I don't remember him picking up many injuries if any. In fact he seemed to pick up more knocks playing fullback!

It's rugby league for heavens sake! You play, you get hit, you get hurt, you get up. If Sam isn't capable of taking a few hits or making a few tackles like he would playing 6 then no way should he be man of steel or considered one of the best players in the game.

I happen to think he's a lot tougher than others seem to, although given that he refuses to return any kicks and always gives the ball to Charnley killing any opportunity to counter attack right from the kick I could be wrong.

Who's we ?

And breath !

All that paragraph is just the one sentence.

Sam at 6 used to make 20-30 tackles a game he now makes 2-8.
Keep him at 1 as that gives him the attacking options rather than him spending his time and energy making tackles.
I said he "Might" get hurt not that he would and that was the reason for keeping him at 1.
Full Back keeps him fresh and able to run at tired men, at 6 doesn't.

Tomkins best game v Wire was at 6.

Yes but the OP has a point. Given that TL, Finch and Powell were hurt I believe our next best option was for Sam to go 6. IMO Sam should be our emergency 6 from now on.

It's certainly a fair point. Wane said we had no other option but to play an unfit Finch, we clearly did. We had a player who was considered the best stand off in the league before he was moved to fullback.

I can understand why people wouldn't want Sam moved from fullback and long term there's no reason to do that. He's the best attacking threat in the league at fullback when the team is playing well. However when the team needs cover in the halves I can't see why he wouldn't be one of the best options available.

Jack Murphy showed signs that he would be competent at the very least when given a chance at fullback, so we have cover in that position.

I just don't get this idea that Wane had no other option.

From your avatar pic , id say keep your eye pealed

.Its hard being a Cowboy in ROCHDALE



.

cherry.pie was right. The idea he should not play 6 because he might have to tackle more is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.



He might get hurt playing 1 as well. Or is he supposed to run away form making any tacke these days? It's Rugby League!

He started out as a 6 and having to tackle is no reason not to play him there if needs must. Given Lockers is just plain wrong at 6 its about time Wane stopped playing him there. If that means Sam to 6 until people are fit then that is what he needs to do.

The pack getting beat v Wire is irrelevant anyway (as a reason not to play him at 6 as opposed to how it affected the Wire result) in that this happens occasionally and the half backs have to put up with it and deal with it as best they can.

Sammy Powell isn't injured he was the 18th man but didn't make the team when finch passed a very late fitness test. Wane wrongly told the press he was out with a back injury!

Inglis = fullback, barba= fullback, bowen=fullback, Slater=Fullback.
The NRL is the toughest teamsport in the world, where defence is king, and there is nothing between the top 10 sides, and the position that has the most influence to crack these defences? The fullback. The ozzies sussed this years ago, wake up you unconverted children, SAM PLAYS AT FULLBACK END OF

Surely you've missed the point that was being made. With Powell not fit, Finch not fit, Leuluai absent and O'Loughlin pretty much an essential in the pack, we do actually have another option in the halves, contrary to what Shaun Wane suggested.

There aren't many that don't agree that Tomkins is a fullback, but when you've got a choice between moving him back into the halves or letting an unfit player struggle on against the strongest side in the league it would be madness not to consider moving him to a position he's familiar with to avoid carrying an unfit player throughout the whole game.

Also, when it comes to Tomkins at fullback, he really does need to start playing to his potential in big games. He's played well sometimes in big games, he's also had some pretty terrible performances in big games. I can't remember many big games where he's been outstanding. That's why he's not in the same class as Slater, Inglis, Barba, Bowen etc.

These players would not move to stand off.
You wouldnt ask Cavendish to lead Wiggins out into a sprint.
I agree Lockers cant play at 6, but we can (and should) sign another player or get Sean Long(only joking!)

Hard being a "Warrior" in Rochdale this week.

Mash, so what you are saying is if every halfback in the club is injured ,either experienced or not we must stay as we are.
By that I mean if we have a young promising fullback who has only ever played fullback and as never let us down,it is Sam who stays at fullback even though we have to juggle forwards about to get a team on the field. Weighing up your options and making a decision which brings the least dissruption to your team is what is required.
An example would be If Pat Richards is fit for the last few matches and Wigan still had major problems at halfback what would you do,Leave Sam at fullback and move Pat to standoff or use the commen sense approach. I would love to see your answer.

Sam Tomkins is a good full-back. He is equally as good at stand-off. It's not difficult. Infact, with more involvment and with his creativity, he would probably be more effective in the halves, we only have two set moves with him at full-back, and they are both the same, just on opposite sides of the pitch, unless he creates something on his own, which he regularly did at stand-off.

As dangerous as Sam is playing at fullback, if we have more options at 1 than 6 then he has to play 6. You make the least amount of changes to your team as possible and having a half fit player with no direct replacement is suicide in a big game imo.

I can't be @rsed trying to dig them out but I'd be willing to bet a decent amount that Sam's strike rate with regards to tries and assists is higher when he's played FB than HB. I don't know how you can say he is equally good at stand off with so much certainty, we haven't seen him there for over 2 years and he's a much better player now than he was then. We definitely don't only have 2 moves either.

I do agree with the point that is being made though about putting him back there in a needs must situation. Hopefully Finch will be back closer to full fitness come next Monday and I'm also sceptical about how "injured" Powell was when he was warming up for everyone to see. If Sam had played 6 on Saturday and Russell/Murphy had messed up for a try there would be so many posters on here giving it "he shouldn't have played in such a big game" etc, SW can't win. He took a risk, it didn't pay off, time to buck our ideas up and move forward to the last few games.

I don't think you need too, his strike rate is by far better at FB than HB. Anyone who's watched Wigan in the past few years could tell you that.

With regards to Sam going back to HB, in all honesty it wouldn't be a bad move in the short term. IF Finch is injured and not fully fit, I'd consider;

1. Russell
6. Sam
7. Smith

(or vice versa Smith and Sam)

At the end of the day ST can play at HB - he played there all his playing career until MM moved him. In the short term it could prove to be a good switch.

I say short term because our gameplan does sometimes rely on Sam hitting the ball at pace from the FB position into gaps/space. I haven't seen any of Russell so I couldn't comment on his ability to fill in there.

There's usually one or two of us wandering around the local Asda.