No they are not . No one is slagging him off for how he played v Celtic but some people have a different opinion on who should have been MoM.

As threads on players tend to do it drifted into discussing the merits of the player generally.

IMO gives no pointers about Wigan's form as a team or individually the opposition were so poor which is not slagging anyone off.

Dave

I thought the opposition were so poor yesterday that it was difficult reading anything into Wigan's performance - except to say that, generally, it wasn't as convincing as it should have been.

We bombed two or three tries through our own ineptitude.

I was also unhappy to see Ainsbough missing from the line-up. I know he's been prone to making errors recently but he's still got an instinct for the line which, at times yesterday, seemed to be lacking. Several certain scores where fluffed when players went back inside or opted to take it themselves rather than using the men on their shoulder.

A win is a win, and sometimes you maybe need easy fixtures to get your heads back together, but I don't think yesterday can give us any real clues. I especially feel that with Tim Smith. Yes, he was one of the outstanding performers on the day, but you'd expect that with a player of his pedigree. There wasn't really anything 'extra' there.

I agree with the comments but I remember when Wigan thrashed Whitehaven last year and Sam Tomkins was given the MOM and everybody on this forum wanted Sam in straight away despite it being a very poor team we was playing against and Celtic were poor yesterday but not as bad as Whitehaven

Good to hear that he was pleased about being picked. Lets hope it helps him build confidence. If so and the lad can display more of his massive potential then your grand might have been a brilliant investment in the future of Wigan RL...

The main worry for me from our performance yesterday was the forwards. The backs I thought did well but we seemed to lack intensity and aggression in the pack (apart from Hock and occasional cameos from Feka). If Celtic had had a 2 or 3 powerful forwards I think the game would have been very different. As it was their pack looked weak and our backs were able to win the game comfortably.

I'd agree with that. The only thing I'd add is that I thought Coley had a good opening spell.

I hate to say it but I wasn't impressed by Prescott at all yesterday. He seemed to plod up with the ball and sometimes even adopted Coley's sideways running style. A couple of other posters seemed impressed by his performance, but he seems a long way from his pre-injury form at the end of last season.

You do start to wonder if even our 'appreciated' forwards are weaker than we think.

Most Wigan fans would probably agree that we do okay in the back row stakes. We've got Bailey, Hock, Lockers, Hansen, Tomkins and soon hopefully Mossop all jockeying for selection. But just how effective are these lads in reality?

Even when we play what we assume to be our strongest pack, we're often bested by the opposition. It can't just be down to Fielden's ongoing frailty (though that, I'll grant you, is a huge contributor, given that his wage could probably purchase two top-line prop forwards).

Hansen was Hitman of the Year last year, and gets through a shed-load of work. Lockers tackles his guts out. Tomkins has massive promise, which he'd gradually fulfilling. Hock is the loose cannon, but can also be a wrecking ball when the mood is on him. There's only Bailey who I feel is surplus to requirements.

Yet they keep being dominated by opposing packs.

Maybe we should bite the bullet and consider that even the players we like might not be good enough for where we want Wigan to be.

I thought Bailey looked Ok v Celtic but again it was only Celtic.

It's another one of those ques5ions we won't find the answer to unless Noble makes the right selection calls or leaves.

If he would play Hock and Lockers in the 2ns row and Tomkins at 13 I think we would see a much better back row performance. I think both Lockers and Tomkins are being done no favours by Noble and both would be better players in the different positions. I think Hock would benefit as well as I think Lockers would be a more attacking 2nd row than either of Bailey or Hansen so it would not be so easy for the opposition to close our back row down.

At the moment if they gang up on Hock we don't really have another 2nd rower to trouble them. With this change I suggest I think both Lockers and Tomkins would give the opposition more pause for thought.

Dave

Isn't it funny that how in the last couple of weeks the likes of Phelps, Smith and Coley have upped their performances and they are out of contract at the end of the season

[quote="kirkamania6"]Isn't it funny that how in the last couple of weeks the likes of Phelps, Smith and Coley have upped their performances and they are out of contract at the end of the season [/quot

yeah or probably more to the fact smith and phelps have been given a chance