If we were set to sign Sam before the marquee rule, with it being passed that equates to a sizeable amount of salary cap space freed up, and if it is true we won't be signing any players, I sincerely hope the likes of Hampshire get signed up to long term deals.

Just feels like we are scrimping from IL.

Snap. Exactly how I feel.

You could almost understand it if we were able to retain players like Leeds have managed to so the team matured together but we can't which in itself is a concern.

If we have no new players coming in, not only are we again failing to capitalise on an opportunity again to be comfortably the dominant force in the league, we are also risking the development of our younger players by chucking them in effort they are ready. Gildart for example if we don't sign anyone could be relyed on for long parts of next year if we pick up 1 injury in either centre or wing position which to be fair is highly likely.

We at least need 2 players a Prop and a wing/centre. At least.

Think Tierney will cover the wings and next season, Hampshire cover HB and Gildart will probably (as you say) will probably be thrust into the centres as cover, but is that a bad thing? I don't think so. We have 3 quick and intelligent players there, they have to be bred in at some point. I think Waney will make another signing (prop) and that will probably be that but overall I think that will be enough with Sam T coming back. He is like having a FB, HB, Hooker all rolled into one on the same pitch. I do think we need cover at centre but if Gildart is ready then he must be. I must admit I haven't seen him much but from what I read a lot of you are impressed. We have just started picking up at the business end of the season and its all to play for. Let's just concentrate on what's to come for now

How many teams have an experienced centre as cover? Leeds use Ablett, Saints use Jones, Wire use Ben Currie etc.

Having just read this thread, it's full of peaks of reason (e.g. Wigan are second) v's the depths of depression with "Wigan are not the team I knew"... Depressingly this sums up the debate for most of the forum.

The game I watch today is a robotic shadow of what I used to watch in terms of entertainment. However, the fitness levels are way beyond what I used to see (and play) and the laws of the game have been interpreted to a science. The interesting characters, moderated to non-entities.

BUT, I look at where Wigan are, second in the league. Out of the Challenge Cup. A few games away from the end of the season and a really healthy chance at the GF.

This forum describes a team who are not good enough... How do we measure past teams? By the record books? It seems Wane hasn't done too badly here.

How do we rate our entertainment every week? By what's on the pitch in front of us. The game has changed. Wigan have evolved to be pretty good at it, but not what the Wigan fans (and I suspect many of the watching fans) want to watch.

The sport needs to scream about it's god-like human beings playing the game, pinnacle of fitness with strength of character to get there and keep playing the game despite injury. There's no point in the echo chamber of the RFL, scream from the rooftops and just hope that we can attract spectators to this wonderful game despite the clinical game of today. BUT we also need to allow the characters to shine and less structured play to break free.

An interesting and balanced post

It's every generations prerogative to bemoan the lack of characters in the game. But I'd say that any team with Sam Tomkins and Gelling in it would fulfil that criterion. And recently we've had Feka, Hock, Piggy Riddell and Martin Gleeson. I believe there's still room for the characters in today's game (Danny Brough and Rangi Chase off the top of my head).