No point praising someone for a play that gets you one try and costs you another. The same way his 40/20 was cancelled out by three pathetic kicks straight into Hardaker.

You really think he's up to scratch?

Likewise no point bagging someone if you're not prepared to acknowledge making up for the a mistake.

As I've just said he was the only one capable of creating something last night. Without Locky our attacking structures fall apart, that's the main problem that needs addressing.

lmao

So criticising a below average player is now having an "agenda" against him?

It was a questionable signing to say the least and sadly, a year later I have been proven correct.

No. For example, saying that the two best pieces of play last night only happened simply because the opportunities presented themselves (that could be said about any piece of creativity - it takes someone to actually take advantage of it) and therefore didn't warrant praise might be argued to have been agenda driven.

Just like pointing out criticising a below average player is ok without actually taking account of their performance might also be argued to be agenda driven.

HTH.

Tonight Leeds played on the advantage line, and perhaps, should have been pulled up more than they were for forward passes, but we were playing from a couple of yards back making defence relatively easy. We did not give ourselves the chance.
We looked plodding, look at the pass for the interception, it was as though the decision to pass had been made several tackles earlier. Only Andy Powell looked to be capable of thinking on his feet and no one was looking for it.
Lastly we suffered from not having a back on the bench. Sam Powell could have covered both hooker and in the backs. Even Gelling would offer a bit more.

IMO Last night Leeds came onto the ball from depth at pace, forced themselves across the tackle line creating better go forward.
Our attack was flat, had no pace and we were stopped on the tackle line. It wasn't only predictable ( other than the three obvious occasions) it was slow, like preseason warm up.
Lastweek against Hull our attack was exciting and fun to watch
Never mind, It's been a good season, we aren't out of it yes and Sams leaving so we may try some other attacking plays next year.

A lot of our problems lie in the smaller parts of the game. In defence we are very quick in making a tackle and getting set at marker. This avoids penalties but there is no wrestling tactics by Wigan which makes the dummy-halves job a lot easier against us. Look at what position our players are in when getting up to play the ball in respect to the opposition. This then negates a lot of what Michael McIlorum & Logan Tomkins can do in making cheap gains and further hampers our dummy runs which last night didn't seem to exist. This then puts far more pressure on our halves who don't have the time to get the balls out wide. We regularly played the ball quickly last night and Sam came into the line only to find the Leeds line had kept up with the play. If we do that we have to run down the middle and that becomes a bigger challenge.

Add to that our backs taking the balls in for cheap yards and somehow gaining none (We had three quick PTB's in a row last night with no markers set by Leeds & still had to kick from our own half) and our awful kicking game and its no wonder we are poor. Unless we get the tactics spot on regarding the small things we will never be in a position to challenge top quality sides with good defensive structures like Leeds, Warrington & Huddersfield

Wane needs to take a risk and go with Hampshire at 6 IMO

Seriously?

Wane signed Green and will not drop him.
Last night we lost it in the pack.
Our back three in the forwards of Hansen, Farrell & Flower/Tuson do not have the size, power or skill to overpower most opposition teams let alone Leeds with Peacock in their number.
We need bigger men in the back three to get on top of opposition teams and until we do it will be a struggle.
As for Shaun Wane not being concerned about our form, well he must be the only one who isn't.

Peacock is a prop and one of the primary roles of the opposing props is to take care of him and not leave it to the back row.
During the last few weeks I have thought that Hanson has tackled himself into the ground and it is only tonight that I have wondered why.
When you watch the Wigan defence on our right you will see time and time again Goulding and then Charnley having to drift inside to cover. This in my opinion is because Hanson has to do far more tackling than Farrell on the left because he himself has to come inside to tackle big forwards who drift to their left.

I may not have explained my feelings that well but it is just that Farrell seems to be able to stay that bit wider than Hanson and thereby protect the flanks more.

It seems to be an old problem ,Wigan do not seem to be able in defence to slide to their right as well as they slide to the left.