No props, no pots.

I really wish he'd stop with this 3 props bollox and play a full complement of 4. We did exactly the same thing in the CC against the same team and got beat, we only played two props against the Dire and got beat, and with the Whinos lacking in the prop department we hand back he initiative by only playing 3 tonight - madness.

Agree fully.

We lost the battle in the forwards at times, and that's not good enough given their absences.

You can't compete at this level without a full firing pack, and we didn't have one tonight.

Feka was injured tonight so what choice did he have? Davies? He would have caved in a game like that. Hansen did a good enough job and even set up a try.

Maguire can only work with whats in front of him (and hes done a good fooking job so far) hence the signings for next year.

I've said before I'd always play 4 specialist props - even if that means Davies. From what I've seen there's nothing to suggest he'd caved in.

Am not sure how 4 props on the bench would have helped us losing Deacon, which is where I think we really struggled.

If were using the loss of Deacon as an excuse we are really struggling..

Feka has to play next week if he's fit along with Prescott from the bench. I thought Prescott struggled tonight but he's a solid enough option and we must go into the HKR game with 4 props.

Tuson is such a willing worker but he got man handled tonight and looks ready for an off seasons break(he needs to get himself bulked up). His place is very much up for grabs.

He's been brilliant, but Tuson for instance is not a prop. Davies would have been a better option IMO. We didn't need 2 second rowers on the bench and only 1 recognised prop.

I think he picked Hansen as a prop not another back row so I think in his eyes he did put four props in the side.

The mistake he hasn't learned from is IMO picking Sam at full back. Everyone sees the attacks but is ignoring when faced one on one v a forward on the line he will not save the try. Happened tonight and it's happened before. There is a big difference defending in the line when other can help out quickly compared to dealing one on one in that situation and I think people have written off the importance of being able to defend well from the full backs skill set because Sam and even Roberts and Phepls are not top notch defenders when playing full back. Don't get me wrong Sam is a fearless tackler but being the last man in defence is a whole different ball game to tackling in general play.

Dave

For me our whole shape changed and we lost momentum and link play, coupled with worse last tackle kicking when Deacon went off and Lockers switched to stand-off. Just my opinion.

Deacon does 2 things for the side basically which has an unbelievable impact-

1-He kicks the side around the field

2-He provides a link to Sam Tomkins and gets him quick and accurate ball

Deacon goes off and along with him went our kicking game and alot of Tomkins threat.

If only you had someone at fullback who could stop the Leeds forwards (and wingers) one-on-one. Someone like that Warrington fullback who did it time and again at Wembley...

That's a very good point.

With displays like he's had, we focus on the attack instead of any defensive problems. Rads would have had Eastwood tied up 30 metres before we did at one point in the second half.

How can you say Davies would have caved in a game like that? He played in the game away at Leeds when you won. I think his main error though was not picking someone who could slot into the back line off the bench.

How many coaches put a 3/4 on the bench though?

I'd be seriously p*ssed off if we had Marsh (for instance) as an interchange instead of a forward.

Ask Kris what he thinks of Sam at fullback and his performances in that position, he's also the first to admit he wasn't superman and never missed a tackle or got made to look silly.

I've not said he did, or that Sam's performances in general aren't good.

The quote raised an interesting point - what's a more important quality as a full back, eye-catching attacking prowess or being defensively brilliant?

In the modern game with a well drilled mobile defence, it's attack. That maybe sad, it may not be, but it's largely true.

I can see where you're coming from but if you aren't confident any of the bench or forwards can fill in at fullback, wing, centre, 6 or 7 then if one of those positions needs covering then you're struggling, especially if it's 1, 6 or 7. Tonight if you had Marsh or another back on the bench you may have won!

Charnley has been on fire recently, would certainly give him a go next week against his on loan team mates.

But if you need a well drilled mobile defence, surely a defensively sound FB is centre to that?

It'll be interesting next week to see if he puts Sam back to 6 and which back may come into the side. I don't think there's much wrong with Wigan's 1-5 but it's getting the combinations right and having the players in place to fill in on a match day.

If Sam goes to 6, then it should be a straight switch to FB.

No point messing with 2-5.

On another thread someones talking about putting Sam back to 6 with Phelps at 1 and Roberts at 2.

One player hasn't played all season, one player who's form hasn't recovered since nearly knocking the posts over six months ago.

And Darrell Goulding who's not done a lot wrong would have to be dropped to fit them in!