You're right, they did, but I suspect that was a factor in their collapse. In contrast to your approach we defended quite conservatively, as we have done throughout the playoffs (presumably a change of tac to reflect the additional stamina required in the playoffs where all your opposition are top teams). If you look at how we defended against Leeds we hung back and contained them almost perfectly, and this is demonstrated no better than when Burrow made his scampering runs which would have cut us open had we not hung back. Granted there is a risk in defending like this and it almost backfired on us as if anyone can take advantage of that defending style it is Wire, but we hung on and by half time the differences were taking their toll.

The second big factor was the decision not to take the two. It was a gamble by Tony Smith when he overruled Briers but one he perhaps had to take. Maybe he could see his team tiring and thought he needed to finish the game off there and then but in hindsight it was a mistake to think Grand Finals can be won in the 30th minute. Perhaps that six minute purple patch brought on a bit of hubris and caused him to disrespect his GF opponents.

i've since heard carvell shouldn't have been playing, and from reading the guardian last week, it seems a miracle that harrison is even setting foot on a rugby pitch at all this year. he didn't return in the second half in in effect we were rotating off one player.

If that is indeed the way you chose to defend then I agree its risky. Had circumstances been different, and at 16-2 down, it could have bitten you right on the backside.

Having said that I agree with your point for taking the 2. We should have gone for the kick and, it seems, all the players knew it was the right thing to do but, when you look at the purple patch of ours immediately before that, we could potentially have gone on to get another try. Certainly Bridge didn't help by going into touch on the subsequent 2nd tackle therefore surrendering the ball to you over a minute earlier than you should have had it. I don't think not taking the 2 pointer was our downfall but it would have run the clock down sufficiently to get to the break, probably, with a 16point lead rather than a 10 point lead.

There was no collapse.

Wigan should of been 3/4 trys up had they not made a mess of the final pass or took the wrong option.

Warrington went up the other end and scored 3 quickfire trys that went against the general run of play.

It was obvious that if Wigan could manage to get field position again the points would eventually come and they did.

Warringtons forwards were moved around by the much more mobile Wigan forwards leaving them shot after 50 mins and unable to dominate the game like they expected.

Once Wigan pulled the game back to 16-12 Warrington never recovered and Wigan sensed the tiredness and panic in the Warrington team and put the sword to them with an almost perfect second half display.

So Wigan didn't score because they fluffed it rather than good, albeit stretched, scrambling defence?

And how can you say there was no collapse? Regardless of the reasons, our complete defensive structure was shot and we were rotating off two (some say one) interchanges. I'm not suggesting that we would have kept Wigan try-less if circumstances were different but the collapse was there for all to see.

I'e just been down the ground to sort out season tickets and grabbed a quick word with one of the backroom staff going into reception ..... Ratchfords injury we all saw, but he also confirmed that Myler, Carvell and Harrison all sustained leg injuries which meant they should have been at very least rotated, but as Grix & Westwood had sustained head injuries requiring constant off-field treatment, they couldn't be taken off without leaving less than 13 on the pitch. So, with JM in cloud cuckoo land, Briers at fullback, Bridge on the wing, and Riley trying to fill in at wing, fullback, and standoff, is it any wonder Wigan were able to find gaps all over the pitch.

We know Wane is a brawler turned rugby player, but no wonder he's "Proud" of his lads ....... I don't mind the game being a brawl involving a ball, so long as we all know it from the off. When Thaiday cannonballs Charnleys knees and SBW uses McIlorum as a wishbone in the World Cup, lets see if he puffs out his chest and says how 'proud' he is then! .....

It's only my interpretation that we defended conservatively, based on our other payoff performances. I could be wrong but I think Shaun Wane has shown a maturity in his approach this year so I wouldn't discount it.

Carvell played with a cracked rib, Morley with a fractured cheekbone and then take out 3 players in 10 mins and a lot of sides would struggle.

I agree with all of that. And we could also say that Joel could have scored from his first chance - which would have been four tries "against the run of play"

www.superleague.co.uk/report/9683 Some of the stats are incredible in the difference. The major difference is the metres gained by the bench players, Morley made the most for you with 49m, Flower made over double that.

www.superleague.co.uk/report/9683 Some of the stats are incredible in the difference. The major difference is the metres gained by the bench players, Morley made the most for you with 49m, Flower made over double that.

After reading the comments here and after suffering from the loss i can only summarize as follows:

We won the first half and they won the second. We got injuries and they didin't. We got tired and they didn't. They won and we didin't

The thing that nags me is that we didn't in the early second half push on, we gave them confidence which they exploited very well. It was similar to the way we failed last year our best players did not perform again, for whatever reason

All we can do is regroup and look forward to the new season. The club need to unveil somthing to get us all raring to go

Well done to them.

Interesting that Sky have removed Hansens tackle on Ratchford from their 'highlights' ...... I still maintain had Morley held up Tomkins for Westwood to dive across his legs, we'd have seen the first yellow (or red?) at a GF.

Yes this is what I have been told.

If the injuries hadn't happened to five players we would have won. We had forwards in the backs and not even 13 fit men on the field.

Quite frankly anyone who says different is an outright idiot.

Said it before, I'll sum it up in 3 words....

No substitute backs!

Geez, theres alot of injuries coming out of the wood work now. Is there anyone in the warrington team who wasn't playing seemingly half dead?