Soliola was brought over as centre/second row, much as Gilmour was last year as those are the positions he has played in. HOwever, we lost Solioloa by halftime of the first match of the season and Wheeler became default first choice. When he has been injured it has been Flannery covering. We were getting down to desperation stakes at one point when Gidley was injured as well as Wheeler, so Armstrong had to come in on the wing and Foster played at centre, and had a mare, although we haven't seen Armstrong since then either I don't think. However, this time we've put Meli at centre with Flannery at the other centre, but of course Meli plays on the wing and Flannery is a second rower.

We've really lost track of who is first choice and who is second choice to be honest as during Potter's time here we have had so many injuries that with the exception of the prop forwards it hasn't really been a case of one man dominating one position for the best part of two seasons. These days I'm beginning to think of Foster and Lomax as our first choice wingers as both Meli and Gardner have been missing for two or three spells each.

Please explain.
I was replying to the o.p. who asked who else?


And explained.
At least I thought I did.
To reasonable people of course.

It's not just a case of who was missing, but how well certain players have done playing out of postion.

Just last week we put cricket score on the wildcats, you said we can only beat whats infront of us and the wildcats are poor.

This week we go to a team that turned you over at your place with a team missing some good players, not one centre on the pitch, a hooker playing at 7 and few young kids, yet you still feel the need to put saints down.

Well I hope if we meet you in the play offs or GF that Lomax and Foster are your "first choice wingers"
Just out of curiosity how many games on the wing have Lomax and Foster played v Meli and Gardner?

Spot on. However, Rogues just wants to get in how Wigan have had six million players missing this year but have had no credit for it and so why are Saints talking about missing players. Coz the poor ole crusties have had a much, much harder time and hey, look, they're top.

Except, of course, they haven't had 11 players out at the same time at any time, meaning that they are down to playing an 18 year old scrum half on his debut with wingers playing as centres and second rowers playing as props and centres and wingers.

Foster was a winger when we beat you at DW. He saved the bloody match for us, idiot. So that would be fine by me.

I do have to applaud how well a saints team plays together no matter what position or combination of 17. You have a knack of just making things stick and work out. Like tonight, whenever a saints player threw the ball to ground, another saints player picked up for them, yet whenever we threw the ball to the floor, a saints player dropped on it first.

Lomax has missed most of the season.

Ade has missed alot of the season.

Foster not played all that much really.

We've had a few wingers this year, meli, ade, foster, lomax, armstrong and dean all played wing this year.

Oh, we're not like that every week! Some days we've just dropped the ball and everyone has stood around to watch. We've usually lost those matches but sometimes we have managed to win, when the opposition has done it even more often than we have. Tonight we raised our game. But we might suffer for it next week, alas, as I don't think we have managed to win two games on the trot when we have had a really tough one to follow on from.

For someone who is "supposed" to be studying to be an English teacher, what part of Who Else do you not understand.

I pointed out the players missing from last nights Wigan team. Or did they play?

Please do not apply for a post in Billinge.

It's not like that every week mate, believe me, we've looked shocking at times this year.

Just all seemed to click tonight, wolves seem to have the ability to lose the game against us. Bombed some chances tonight.

Hypocrisy defined but no surprise from you.

Nobody on here cares about Wigan other than they are important to a strong SL - we don't care about who you have missing or whatever and neither does Michael McGuire - one iota, and any more than you do when we have a weakened team. We never have done so stop drawing irrelevant and pathetic comparisons merely aimed at reducing your age induced boredom and trying to wind up teenagers. Your presence on this board when posting objective, reasoned debate, is welcomed.

Your presence on this board when being an obstructive, Wigan apologist is laughable so when you are in the mood where you think you are a genuine troll be aware that, to all but the 13 - 17 year olds who don't know any better, you're more transparent than a sheet of K-Glass and an object of utter ridicule. For example I couldn't go to the game tonight either - it doesn't make me any less of a Saints fan. The tattoo on my back will tell you so.

Do one Brian - you're becoming as boring as Father Ted.

The point is though, the OP believed it was 8 or 9 1st teamers missing from what would be your strongest 17, it isn't. It's more like 6, which as I said is still a fine performance. But it's nothing to get giddy or excited about when every team goes through the same. It's called having a good squad, not just 1-17 which is what we can say both Wigan and Saints have in great quality. I think Wire would be looking a couple places down the ladder if the same was for them.

Surely if someone asks "Who else" which is a question (or was when I went to school) you should expect a reply.