Could only listen in, but sounded like a really frustrating one where we managed to shoot ourselves in the foot, again.

Is it surprising though? Last week, yet again, a shonky win was met by the sentiments of "we won, move on"...... No, at some point lets not move on. Bar the odd (big) game where we raise it, since day one of this season every facet has been down on last season and you can't consistently win games with questionable performances. It will catch you out eventually.

I don't think we should be calling for anyone's head or demanding [ix[/i amount of changes, but likewise the attitude to how we've been so far this year shouldn't be so blasé. It's not been good enough and needs to get better ASAP if we're to do anything this season.

Cust is a half.

He needs to play half for full games or not be in the 17 unless we are desperate for cover at 9.

He offers nothing from the bench.

Despite them playing different positions it’s a choice between Cust and Miski who is in the 17.

With Miski playing so well he is virtually impossible to drop, but the knock on issue is whilst French is a great attacking individual the team is suffering because of a lack of direction in the halves, French also is a great threat on the wing individually however his weakness is carrying the ball early in sets, which is a key attribute of our play.

Like others I would like to see Field at 6 and French at 1, as I do not believe French is a half, Field I think is more suited to that role. I understand the desire to see them swap in defence but personally I don’t like that idea as I feel it’s somewhat pandering to a defensive fragility that Field needs to address.

I think we would all prefer to see Bevan at 1, but Peet has said many times that he prefers Field at 1 and I think given what happened at Magic he won't move from that now. Real shame as that Leigh performance looked like the start of something special until the injury.

So you managed to watch all the game and didn't see any dubious decisions in Wigan's favour? Well done!

The alternative view would be 'is it brave or stupid to stick with something that clearly isn't working'? I get where you're coming from but we clearly worked on Field at 6 prior to Leigh so it's not like a completely new scenario. I agree we dumped it too quickly. I'd have preferred we worked on addressing the defensive issues. Field is not a bad defender. He's just not suited to defending in the line where upper body strength is a prerequisite. I disagree with Jonh in that I don't see the problem in switching roles. Accepting there's a problem and dealing with it is preferable to pretending there isn't one or alternatively changing everything just to deal with an easily remedied weakness.

Tbh, I actually think making the switch would be a positive rather than a negative anyway, regardless of it solving a problem as it would be utilising the best aspects of both players and would open up further variations in the switch play in attack.