IMO its a really poor tactic to have your halfback (or similar) defending where the centre should be. You're just asking the opposition to run at that position. Souths tried it a couple of times last season with Chris Sandow and got murdered. Its an attempt to 'protect' a weak defender, but usually ends up worse than if you just put them in their proper position, at most one in from the centre where at least cover can get across.

McGuire is annoying to me defensively because when he wants to (last year's GF for instance) he has shown he can tackle pretty well, which combined with his ability to read the game should make him a very reasonable defender. Sadly at other times he doesn't look interested in making the tackle and combines this with dreadful technique.

Just watched the highlights and the line defence on the right side was woeful. Watkins looked confused about where he was supposed to be, and the other players didn't even move off the line for both of KR's first half tries. The right side generally looked poor, moving backwards when the ball went that way - that's a recipe for disaster in itself (lesson for England as well).

The solution - perhaps bizarrely - could be to make Watkins responsible for the right side defence. He's a big unit for sure (he looked a monster with the ball) and ought to be intimidating his opponents and forcing them to go elsewhere. The difference between him and Hardaker defensively is significant - Hardaker looks as though he enjoys defence and gets himself into the play.

*If* BJB is showing anything positive in training I'd certainly put him in for this one, given what he's done to Richards last season. Watkins/BJB vs Carmont/Richards would be a huge pace mismatch.

Quote rhinoms="rhinoms"Not for the 1st 3 tries he wasn't. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/18546.php'" Just because he didn't miss the tackle doesn't mean he didn't contribute to the score. He was the one defending between Smith and Sinfield. He wasn't there and out of position. For me the problem came from the confusion of having both your half backs defending in the same channells, and more to the point the same side. I agree with the suggestion above, Watkins should defend in the centre and look after that side of the defence. To me he was doing a good job defending on Friday.

Quote rhinoms="rhinoms"Not for the 1st 3 tries he wasn't. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/18546.php'" Just because he didn't miss the tackle doesn't mean he didn't contribute to the score. He was the one defending between Smith and Sinfield. He wasn't there and out of position. For me the problem came from the confusion of having both your half backs defending in the same channells, and more to the point the same side. I agree with the suggestion above, Watkins should defend in the centre and look after that side of the defence. To me he was doing a good job defending on Friday.

Yes "only". The least of the 4 props as in 9 out of 75 tackles made by the props. Of course bald stats don't tell the whole story as game time etc comes into it and Leuluai had impressive go forward figures. However if he had equal game time to the other props "only" is a fair desciption of 9 tackles out of 75. Had it been Kirke that only made 9 tackles the knives would have been out.



Totally Irrelevant

I don't know weather I should watch it at home in the warmth of my front room or get myself along to the DW.....

Few making the trip across?

It's more appealing with it being a Saturday game.

As neither of us are privy to the coach's game plan you can equally say that if he had similar game time to the other props then maybe 9 out of 75 tackles made by the props is just plain lazy or maybe he was not fit enough to put in a fair tackling stint on top of his very good go forward effort.

I disagree that the missed tackles is a more reliable indicator. Firstly not all missed tackles are crucial one on one affairs. Sometimes the missed tackle acutally slows up the attacker to allow other defenders to complete the tackle, thereby having a positive value. Sometimes the missed tackle is registered by a player who goes out of his way to try and make a tackle that others wouldn't even attempt often on a kick chase.

If you miss say 2 or 3 tackles but have made 25+ in a match it shows a high work rate and effort. If you miss say 0 tackles or 1 tackle but only make 9 in total (like Leuluai on this occassion) then you could say it shows a low work rate.

So missed tackles can be viewed in both a negative and positive way. As to which way depends on the particular set of circumstances. So I would say that missed tackles is not such a reliable indicator as you seem to think.

NB: Kirke made 11 fewer missed tackles last season than Leuluai at an average of 0.7 per game and played 2 more games than Kylie.

Me + 3

Wouldn't miss Wigan away for anything - Love it. Proper big away game feel, we're outnumbered and the team's up against it so getting a win feels awesome.

Plus it's the first opportunity we've had to salute Tomkins since he kindly saluted us at Wembley...

I know what you mean Dave over the past few years I have enjoyed going to the JJB or DW as it's no known.

Money is a bit tight though at the moment but it's the first away of the season.

Decisions Decisions Decisions.

'Maybe' is the operative word, which is why I did not presume to make an authoritative statement. We simply don't know and are therefore in a position to comment, but not to judge.

Webb;
Smith, Watkins, Hardaker, Hall;
McGuire, Burrow;
Bailey, McShane, Peacock;
Ablett, Hauraki;
Clarkson.

Hood, Moore, Griffin, Delaney.

If the injuries to Jones-Buchanan, Sinfield and Leuluai are bad enough for them to miss the match.
If Hood is still injured, Id be tempted to start Ward with McGuire, and Burrow off the bench.

The pairing of Watkins and BJB worked a treat last time round, funnily enough against the pairing of Carmont and Richards.