The fact that we have had no goal kicker and a second row playing centre all season and a goal kicking centre sat out on loan at London is baffling.

Who is telling Smith, Hastings, Leuluai to aimlessly pump out soft kicks down the throats of fullbacks week after week after week. May as well just hand them the ball back.

I've also noticed that we are frequently running back into the line after a tackle with backs turned away from the attack, that's just schoolboy stuff (primary).

A lot of people are pointing the finger for the state we're in at Lam and I understand why. He's a clown that needs to pack his red nose and drive his clown car back to Aus. But, the people only blaming Lam are missing the bigger picture, our recruitment had been so poor for 8 years now, the blame lies with the ginger clown - Radlinski. He's brought Lam into his jobs for the boy's club along with lackluster backroom appointments like Paul Johnson.

Get rid of both of them and rebuild. Does Pollard have the stomach for that?

Your 100% right

Bringing Hankinson back to kick goals will definitely solve all of our problems

I’d be shocked if he got rid of Lam never mind Radlinski. Every now and again there comes a time when the owner of a pro sports club has just got to bite the bullet and recognise it’s time to sack the coach. I doubt IL will do it and if he doesn’t he’s harming the clubs prospects not only for this season but next and beyond as fans walk away, young players have their confidence shot and potential recruits won’t like what they see.

It’s hard to say what lies behind it. A misplaced sense of loyalty? Not willing to pay a severance package? No idea who to replace him with or inability to get a new coach interested? Combination of all three? Who knows but the longer he leaves it if things carry on like this the worse it will get and the harder it is to fix.

I'm not sure if that's a sarcastic response or not?

Hankinson won't change the side on his own, but if bringing in a big solid lad, who's also a decent goal kicker and that in turn let's us move one of our defensive champions back into the pack - why wouldn't we do it?

By the sounds of previous posts of yours, I don't think we're a million miles away from eachother in regards to the style of rugby we both like. Isa (who I still think he has his limitations) plays a huge role in what we are good at - hard, spiteful, pack mentality defence.

That's what we need to get back too and the quickest way to do it, is to have the key players playing in their right positions.

Sort the defence and build from there imo.

No it wouldn’t but it would solve the goal kicking problem. Against HKR we’d have been level at one point with the kicks going over and that can change the momentum of a game. It would also allow 2nd row forwards who have been playing centre to go back into the pack which given Bateman is out injured might be a good idea.

I don’t get the opposition to Hankinson being recalled from loan. The club is struggling to find 17 fit players and while he’s not Gene Miles he’s a better centre option than second rowers in my view.

Even minus the goal kicking Hankinson should be brought back and it’s baffling why he hasn’t been. No Smithies now I guess, No Bateman and No Hardaker or French, so we need as many backs as possible to allow Isa to move in to the pack.

Instead we’ll keep finding a few more 19 year olds we can grind in to the dirt.

Are you all not overlooking the obvious here with regards to Hankinson; is there even a recall clause in the loan arrangement? It may be the case that Wigan simply can't bring him back.

Possibly, but if that's the case then it's a simple one to put to bed.

Both Lam and Hank haven't done that. Earlier on in the season, Lam said "we haven't had those discussions yet" and Hank just posted a shoulder shrug emoji when asked why he wasn't back.

maybe he doesn't want to come back, wigan haven't shown him much loyalty, sending him on a season loan, to a non SL club, at the other end of the country in favour of a FB taking your starting spot.

Would you want to come back?

Then not sure why he signed a new deal before he went.

=#FF0000Hankinson IS on a season long loan and can't be recalled.

Then why don't they just say that and why does everything else seem to say differently?

I actually thought Hastings played well for us last night.
The former MOS basically played full back and scrum half last night – I imagine his stats were quite good.
If we’d had 13 Hastings’ on the pitch we would have won.

While injuries have hit us hard, we are a shadow of the team of a few years ago.
We don’t look organised at all, the youth should slot into the orchestrated plays and a lack of personnel should not really mean we fall apart.

We were making 5 metres per play, no metres after contact, very little flair, offloads etc. just one up drives.
Compared to their 10-15. Our defensive line plods up, if moving at all, meaning you lose 10 yard per play.
All signs of poor coaching or wrong coaching.
We need to press when in defence otherwise we are always jogging back.

Sure get Clark and Hank in, why not.
The Stains game is a ‘free shot’ no one realistically expects a contest or a win.

Yeah it was sarcastic

And although I admit I'm being a bit disingenuous the point I was trying to make is that bringing Hankinson back is not the solution to the problem.

Whether he can be brought back (I've been told he can't, so I don't know why either Hanky is playing dumb, or why Lam isn't just coming out and saying it) or if he can (so Lam has to answer why he hasn't brought him back then) its not the solution.
Neither is Lam's use, or non use, of Mtich Clarke. I'm baffled how someone like him during an injury crisis cant be used more etc and more importantly more effectively.
For example he came on after maybe 50plus mins at wakey and did 10/+2 mins. If he's that out of shape etc he can only do 10mins then get him on early, give him a break then bring back late on for another 10/15. Same with Bullock etc.

I could go on all day at some of the baffling team.selecrions, use of players, loan players, recalling players and ineffective use of players.

But end of the day it comes down to this

Is Adrian Lam getting the best out of the group of players, or, the players we had in previous seasons.
My perspective, apart from a run of 7/8 games back end of last year we've steadily got worse and worse under Lam
He is there to drive the culture, the ethos, the work ethic, the technical and physical aspects of our game and style of play
And were clueless, soft and easy to play against whilst (although not my style of doing things) bringing none of the flamboyance promised.

I'm going to surprise a few here, because although I believe IL has plenty of wins stacked up on the positive side he isn't blameless.

Giving coaches 1yr rolling contracts stinks to me of making it up as we go along, and if he isn't sure he's the right man for 3 years the what do the rest of the players and staff think about that?

The best coaches make individual players and teams play better

Can we say in nearly 3 years Lam has done that?

I think you’re being a bit harsh on your forwards, they are young, lightweight and at times it looked like men against boys with the post contact metres Hill and Cooper in particular were making.

We have no idea if the game pans out the same way if Hankinson plays or not to be sure that either
A/ were at the same point score wise if hankinson plays, we could be 20points further down or 20points up to decide if his golakickig could have made a difference

B/ hed have kicked them

Strangely enough even though I have said the above my argument isn't about bringing him back or not, I have no idea if he can be recalled or not.
My point is that Hankinson coming back will not change the way our season is going even if he can as were just rubbish
And even if he would improve us, then by Lam not doing it just shows that he's incompetent

I said after 4 games under Lam that he wasn't the coach for me for various reasons
2 and half years later I've not seen or heard anything to make me change my mind.

And as I said in previous post IL is not blameless in this respect

That is undoubtedly true and no, Lam hasn't done that. That's why he has to go imo.

IL knows this better than anyone tho. He saw it 1st hand with Madge and he only needs to look at his nearest rivals (Saints) to see the transition between KFC and Holbrook too.

A good coach can't do it all on this own however. You look back to Noble in 06 and, whilst he played a big part, so did Fielden and Dobson. Now I'm not saying that Hank is anywhere near those guys, because he's not. What he is however, is one piece of a larger puzzle that, along with a coach and a prop changes the dynamic of a team.

There's no silver bullet, but there's certainly two or three simple changes that will have a dramatic effect on the side imo.

Has that changed during the season? I spoke to him early in April and he wasn't under that impression then. I'm sure Lam did an interview around that time saying they were monitoring week by week whether to recall him or not.

He (Lam) definitely did say that.

Like many have said, it's an easy one to put to bed. If he can't be recalled, then that's fair enough, but why don't they just say either way.

It's the little things that start to pee people off.

Lam definitely confirmed at one point that he could be recalled. He either got that wrong, really doesn’t rate him to the point where he’d rather keep shuffling players around or we can’t fit him under the cap.

I fully realise that I sound like a broken record, but the whole situation makes zero sense.

He signed a new deal before we went out on loan, that must mean that someone thought he had a use. Now that someone might not be Lam, but it doesn't paint a good picture of everything being joined up. I'll fully accept that I can't be wrong, but sometimes perception is almost as important as the real thing - especially to outsiders/recruits coming in.

It's one example of how poor our recruitment is. Over stacked in some positions, undercooked in others and players on contracts that don't make sense - Clubb, Hank, 3 years for some guys etc.

[urlhttps://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wigan-warriors-chris-hankinson-loan-20219324[/url

So why are Lam and Hankinson himself seemingly under the impression that he can be recalled? All Lam or Hankinson have to say when questioned are that he can't be recalled, yet Lam's response back in March was "we haven't talked about that yet." Hankinson's responses to people who have asked him directly and responses on social media suggest he believes he can be recalled. Matthew Shaw seems relatively well connected and it seems highly likely the comment in the article confirming Hankinson can be recalled at any time came from a source who would know the answer.

Whether Hank can be recalled or not is irrelevant. It’s a red herring here. The one thing that could reignite our season is the sacking of our hopelessly lost coach immediately. There’s patently no guarantee that it will reignite our season but it can’t get much worse.

I’ve been banging this drum since the end of 2019. He wasn’t the coach for us then, he still isn’t now. I just can’t believe IL believes (or seemingly believes) he is.