Quote: Stu M "Pleased in the main with that last night. I expected to lose but the effort was there. Eckersley was deserved MOM, he was outstanding. You can see the physical difference between him and Robertson given he is 2 years older. Robertson hasn’t started training full-time yet.
After a shaky start, Robertson did well and Peet to his credit praised him afterwards too. He’ll make mistakes, he’s 18, he’ll make them next week too if he plays but he’ll also give us something different and it’s clear he is going to be a very good player.
I think Wigan struggled attack wise without French. I know they were missing a few too but French is such a special player that he makes things happen. They had a tonne of possession first half and played us a man down for 10 mins but didn’t look like scoring before Eckersley got on the outside shoulder of Lomax and put Wardle in. That missed tackle is another example of the decline of Lomax.
We get our big players back and I’m more confident that we will be right in the mix and more than capable of winning the big games.
Have to say though the lack of subs from Wellens was appalling. He’s absolutely flogged that pack and Sironen, Lees and Delaney will be sore all week. I dread to think how they can back up.'"
I think it's a bit simplistic saying the attack struggled without French Stu. We missed him. Of course we did. any team would. But I think any clunkiness had more to do with having no hooker. It effectively gave us little distribution when Faz was there and took a half out of our systems when Farrimiond was there. We coped reasonably well but it was never going to be fluent. That said, we scored 3 tries and made at least 6 or 7 clear cut chances as I've said earlier. That's not bad against the often stated "best defense in the league".
Robertson looked good and offered something different in attack. Someone has said he's 6' 2"". Is that right?