Joined: Jul 15 2008 Posts: 2972 Location: God's little acre
Professor Yaffle wrote:In Burgess Wigan have signed a name rather than a player.
In Burgess we have signed someone to compete with Clubb as pretty useless and totally unfit. The worst "big" signing for many a decade. In fact I'm struggling to think of a worse forward that we have signed in the last fifty years who was considered a "star" signing. Lam and the team aren't capable of turning Burgess around
Cbr1000rr wrote:Just shows the difference between a good coach and a sh*t one
You cannot blame Lam or indeed any Coach good or bad for the way they played in the second half.
With the exception of class players like French, Hastings and Hardacre, some of the others signed from outside the club in the last couple of seasons or so have not been up to the standard expected of Wigan players and we also now have to many players who are past their best with the result that too much is being expected of the younger players.
What was shown at Salford last night was that the Wigan unlike Leeds Rhinos this season, have still not got the right balance of experienced players signed from outside the club together with the best young players from the Academy.
As far as I am concerned, Lenagan and Radlinski are alot to blame for that situation and not the Coach, be it Lam or previous Coach Sean Wane.
Itchy Arsenal wrote:In Burgess we have signed someone to compete with Clubb as pretty useless and totally unfit. The worst "big" signing for many a decade. In fact I'm struggling to think of a worse forward that we have signed in the last fifty years who was considered a "star" signing. Lam and the team aren't capable of turning Burgess around
Professor Yaffle wrote:In Burgess Wigan have signed a name rather than a player.
In Wigan, the phrase "doing a Burgess" will very soon become a definition of "paid huge amounts whilst being crap at your job"
That result does not spell disaster, but it does highlight that we, along with every other team, have some weaknesses that need addressing. One that we should be able to easily rectify is the conceding tries directly through our own mistakes/bad play. Once again we went from being in good position to conceding all because of one bad grubber attempt. It turned out to be a crucial try in a tight game.
Our pack got outmuscled in the second half the aggression dropped. I won't be too critical of Lam because I think a lot of our play was due to poor performance from the players, but sticking Leuluai/Powell in the loose forward role when our pack is struggling to make ground? It just made things worse. Perhaps the Bibby injury forced his hand by having to play Smithies out wide, but my guess is he was trying to keep the game tight and save Burgess until later on hoping he'd have an impact. It really didn't work.
For some reason our pack looking absolutely out of it in the second half. Even Powell and Smithies, who generally keep tackling from the first minute to the last, looked exhausted.
I thought Havard was our best player and kept our pack competitive. Farrell was strong too and Isa kept working hard. Burgess is still not there in terms of fitness, but I don't think we can expect him to be for another few weeks yet. Bullock was okay but never returned after that one spell which didn't help. Clark works hard but looks like a liability in terms of discipline. Byrne ran hard but his defence is still a weakness. We missed Partington/Flower on the defensive front and, dare I say it, even Clubb.
Still, we should have been further ahead in the first half and made more of what we had in the second half. Our halfbacks were really poor. Hastings took his try well but otherwise just looked like he was happy to be back at the AJ Bell. Nothing about Hastings before, during or after the game suggested he wanted to be ruthless and cause problems for our opponents. Leulaui offered very little. Smith looked a threat when he came on and his kicking game is miles better than anyone else's. His defence is still an issue, which is to be expected with young halves, but the good outweighs the bad and I think Lam should be starting him.
Joined: Jul 15 2008 Posts: 2972 Location: God's little acre
Cherry.Pie wrote:That result does not spell disaster, but it does highlight that we, along with every other team, have some weaknesses that need addressing. One that we should be able to easily rectify is the conceding tries directly through our own mistakes/bad play. Once again we went from being in good position to conceding all because of one bad grubber attempt. It turned out to be a crucial try in a tight game.
Our pack got outmuscled in the second half the aggression dropped. I won't be too critical of Lam because I think a lot of oussr play was due to poor performance from the players, but sticking Leuluai/Powell in the loose forward role when our pack is struggling to make ground? It just made things worse. Perhaps the Bibby injury forced his hand by having to play Smithies out wide, but my guess is he was trying to keep the game tight and save Burgess until later on hoping he'd have an impact. It really didn't work.
For some reason our pack looking absolutely out of it in the second half. Even Powell and Smithies, who generally keep tackling from the first minute to the last, looked exhausted.
I thought Havard was our best player and kept our pack competitive. Farrell was strong too and Isa kept working hard. Burgess is still not there in terms of fitness, but I don't think we can expect him to be for another few weeks yet. Bullock was okay but never returned after that one spell which didn't help. Clark works hard but looks like a liability in terms of discipline. Byrne ran hard but his defence is still a weakness. We missed Partington/Flower on the defensive front and, dare I say it, even Clubb.
Still, we should have been further ahead in the first half and made more of what we had in the second half. Our halfbacks were really poor. Hastings took his try well but otherwise just looked like he was happy to be back at the AJ Bell. Nothing about Hastings before, during or after the game suggested he wanted to be ruthless and cause problems for our opponents. Leulaui offered very little. Smith looked a threat when he came on and his kicking game is miles better than anyone else's. His defence is still an issue, which is to be expected with young halves, but the good outweighs the bad and I think Lam should be starting him.
The problem for me is that the 2 props signed to improve a poor front row have so far patently not worked in fact they've probably made the situation worse.
Clark allegedly started pre season early and Burgess allegedly "never been as fit in years". For me total bs.
We've got a pack there for the taking every game and a coach who seems out of depth.
SOL and Gildart will obviously improve the team but a poor set of props wil remain the issue for me alway through the season
Joined: Jan 20 2013 Posts: 4469 Location: Watching Rugby League
Itchy Arsenal wrote:The problem for me is that the 2 props signed to improve a poor front row have so far patently not worked in fact they've probably made the situation worse.
Clark allegedly started pre season early and Burgess allegedly "never been as fit in years". For me total bs.
We've got a pack there for the taking every game and a coach who seems out of depth.
SOL and Gildart will obviously improve the team but a poor set of props wil remain the issue for me alway through the season
My thoughts exactly. We basically have the same pack as last season that was bullied in most games. Yes we now have Hastings and French to add some magic, but they won't do it behind a beaten pack week after week.
As an outsider ,i think the whole Burgess brothers circus was just a RL PR exercise & all of them were over hyped. In the international games Hill & Cooper were much better.
Itchy Arsenal wrote:The problem for me is that the 2 props signed to improve a poor front row have so far patently not worked in fact they've probably made the situation worse.
Clark allegedly started pre season early and Burgess allegedly "never been as fit in years". For me total bs.
We've got a pack there for the taking every game and a coach who seems out of depth.
SOL and Gildart will obviously improve the team but a poor set of props wil remain the issue for me alway through the season
I think it's only fair to point out that Burgess was one of our most influential players in the victory over Huddersfield. He's clearly not had the pre-season we've have hoped for and it was said before he played a game that it would take a while for him to get up to speed. I don't know who it was who said Burgess has "never been as fit in years" but I think everyone is capable of seeing the situation for what it is. If he's going to be a success for us it's not going to happen immediately.
Clark was over-hyped, that much is obvious. There's plenty to work with but he hasn't improved our pack this year.
What I would say is that with Bullock not reappearing in the second half we had a fair few props not involved who would have something to add. Bullock, Flower, Partington and Clubb. The first 3 are, in my opinion, part of our best pack along with Burgess and Havard.
We struggled to make ground in attack but for me it's because we weren't dominant in defence. Partington and Flower are among our best defensive players. Byrne and Clark are not. Chuck Powell and Leuluai in the 13 role and we ended up with a pack that was going to get dominated.
Our full strength pack this year will be better than last year in my opinion, it's just that last night, for various reasons, we didn't have the best that we could offer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
