I have to say that it's only a slight concern but one area I think we need to work on in time for the playoffs is our game management. I don't think we are that good at keeping the scoreboard ticking over in close games. When we get into the opposition danger zone we need to make sure we leave with points.

I thought at some points towards the end of the game yesterday we spurned an easy two points in front of the sticks or even an opportunity for the one pointer which would have made it a 13 point game. It's those little blows which deflate the opposition and take the fight out of them which in turn makes it easier for us.

We need to start putting that mentality in place now. In big games like yesterday it's a perfect practice for playoff rugby and doing those little things that win you big games.

I agree but more in regards to the ball sticking. We had plenty of try scoring opportunities and another day would have scored a bucketful. And if i remember correctly, the only time we had a 12 point lead (x converted tries) was at 28-16 in the last 5 minutes, it was always 8, 14 or 18 up until then making the extra 1 or 2 points unnecessary.

Tbf your right when we had the penalty we were 14 points up so it's a decent cushion.

Maybe it's me being a bit of a worrier but I'd still rather just take the almost guaranteed points when they are on offer. Same goes for 1 point option to make a it a 13 point ball game.

I've been screaming it for years. When you're given the chance to take the 2 points you take them (unless time is against you when behind of course). I'd even take 1 point when it's on offer as well.

I was watching some old Wigan Saints games on that video sharing site that have been kindly uploaded and in 1995 we strangled the life out of Saints in a cup tie by kicking penalties and dropping goals from 30 yards+. They show a possession stat that shows us as having 92%. They can't score if they don't have the ball.

If arguably the greatest side to walk the planet can do it then why can't this side??

Taking the two really needs to be managed correctły IMO. On Friday against a weak Saints side on a dry day was not the place IMO unless it was a minute or two to half time or near the end of the game to put it to bed. I'm the opposite way with our usage of the two over the past couple of years, I think we've been negative at times and gone for too many. It cost us the home league game against Wire last year. A game we dominated was lost because we didn't back ourselves to beat Warrington with ball in hand. We have them extra confidence every time we went for the 2 as they were out on their feet.

Leeds used the 2 correctly in our play ôff game last year. It was a horrid night weather wise and they were playing a good side away from home. They knew the game would be low scoring and decided to give themselves the best possibłe chance of victory.

Wigan should have scored 50+ points on Friday and not taking two pointers wasn't an issue IMO. Not being clinical in attack was.

No it didn't. Getting in front and then dropping the ball on tackle 1 and throwing a ridiculous interception cost us that game. Not to mention Eric deciding to piggy back them upfield with the discipline of a two year old.

I've nothing against running the ball, but if you do then you HAVE to score otherwise it's points wasted. Throw in a scenario like the playoffs last year where instead of being 2-0 up and having the ball you're 6-0 down and defending and it's suicide.

As I said, if it was good enough for the likes of Botica, Edwards, Betts, Clarke, Lydon, Farrell etc then it's good enough for us now. We even went 1-0 up in several games in that era just to get ahead and starve the opposition of the ball.

It did IMO. Mistakes in games happen and you can really mange when they come but you can manage your gameplan and make decisions based on what's infront of you. We were all over Wire and had them rocking but kept letting them off the hook by taking the two.

That game is one example of when the two isn't needed and Friday was another IMO. There are games when it is needed but like the title says its all about game management and it works on a match by match, minute by minute basis. I agree with the sentiment but Friday isn't an example of bad game management IMO.

We should have managed Fridays game better by taking our opportunities to score more try's.

And I think those tries would have come if we took our points and starved them of the ball. They get more of a buzz from forcing an error and conceding no points than they do conceding two points and having no ball.

Similarly I think we'd have broken Wire if we didn't keep letting them back in it.

Most games against Wire I'd be with you but not that one. We physically hammered them and not only should have won the game but won it comfortably. I felt it was a mental block against them, a genuine nervousness and lack of belief that we could beat them that cost us and does the majority of the time against Wire.

They're the only side the 'post Noble' Wigan team look shaky against. We believe we're better then everyone, even Leeds but not Wire.

But that then becomes a hindsight decision. One of Clarkey's famous stats

shows teams scoring roughly 50% of the time from penalties inside the opposition's 20, and an even chance of 6 points against, say, 90% chance of 2 points is still usually the better bet.

I'd tend to agree with that but there is another consideration for taking the two and that is toward the end of a game in that it just gives the players a rest. If the game is won then why risk going for a try where players may pick up a knock?

In the Les Cats game we had it well won and had a kick-able penalty but ran it. Maybe they wanted to try and get Pat a hat trick on his 200th appearance but if we have games well won like that we may as well wind the clock down and not take any risks.

This is where I don't mind play off considerations taking over. I expect to go to league games to see us win so no deliberately understrength teams for me and a determination to try and win every game is a must IMO but once they game is won :- Take the two and knock some seconds off.

I get what you say, but you take it for granted you would sink the two pints, and as we all know we don’t always. I know that you could get the ball back even if you didn’t get the score, but usually in a much less favourable position. At times I too think the wrong decision is made and an opportunity to score is missed. I guess it all comes down to momentum (that horrible sky sports word) pressure, confidence, and what we are really talking about, strategy.

Doesn't it depend to some degree on the other team's score as well. If by taking two points you are making them have to score a further try to get level/ahead then it becomes more valid. If the extra two points would not mean they had to score a further try, then perhaps it is better to apply the pressure and run the ball in the hope of scoring a try or forcing a goal line drop out.
For instance, if you are ahead by two points, it may be better to run the ball. If you are ahead by four points, it may be better to run the ball. If you are ahead by six points - take the two.
If you are ahead by eight points, it may be better to run the ball. If you are ahead by ten points, it may be better to run the ball...et cetera.

I think at the time we were 8 ahead going for 2 would have made no difference, what happened was a full set then another minute or so gone off the clock, if we had kicked for goal there was a chance of a short kickoff with saints getting the ball back in our half

When we were 12 ahead there was little over 8 minutes left and we got near their line with a few minutes left there was no chance of them scoring two tries and the decision to keep the ball and attack was correct

I though the game management was spot on in the context of the score, if we had been 6 ahead and a penalty was available then the situation would be different but it wasnt