Wigan made more metres under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011 Wigan made more tackle under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011 Wigan missed more tackles under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 but less than under McGuire in 2011. Wigans points difference under Wane in 2012 is better than under McGuire in 2010 or 2011, although points conceded is up slightly than under McGuire. Wigan made more tackle busts AND clean breaks under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011. www.superleague.co.uk/stats/clubstats

Wigan made more metres under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011 Wigan made more tackle under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011 Wigan missed more tackles under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 but less than under McGuire in 2011. Wigans points difference under Wane in 2012 is better than under McGuire in 2010 or 2011, although points conceded is up slightly than under McGuire. Wigan made more tackle busts AND clean breaks under Wane in 2012 than they did under McGuire in 2010 or 2011. www.superleague.co.uk/stats/clubstats

I think you are being a little unfair. How many of the Championship winning team under Madge have left?

(Gleeson, Carmont, Deacon, Tommy, Coley, Riddell, Joel, then add Finch, Lima, Hoffman, Roberts off the top of my head, I've probably forgotten someone)

Most people would say that he HAS pretty much built up this team from scratch (although granted Sam and SOL are pretty decent starting blocks)

Madge also had the benefit of having 3 very experienced Aussies dropping in his lap unexpectedly.

It's all well and good doing slightly better on an average week, but it's the games that matter that we should be focusing on. I don't have the metres or tackles stats but let's look at results in the knock out games against top 5 sides (I've included the WCC too):

Maguire - P8 W5 L3
2010
Leeds (A) - Lost 10-12
Leeds (A) - Won 26-6
St Helens (N) - Won 22-10

2011
St George (H) - Lost 15-21
Warrington (A) - Won 44-24
St Helens (N) - Won 18-12
Leeds (N) - Won 28-18
St Helens (A) - Lost 18-26

Wane - P3 W1 L2
St Helens (H) - Won 18-4
Leeds (N) - Lost 28-39
Leeds (H) - Lost 12-13

While Wane's record isn't great right now, I do feel it's too early to make big judgements about his ability to win big games. He's only coached us in 3 and he won one of them, and was only a point away from winning another despite having to do so without the services of Sam Tomkins (something Maguire never had to deal with). Like BK says, the jury is out now, but if we get knocked out of the CC as soon as we meet the winner of that Hudds/Wire game, then lose the first big knock out game of the play offs, it becomes very hard to make a case for Wane.

Evidence of what? I'm happy with Wane despite my initial misgivings. Picking up Madge's chalice was a risky proposition despite what Madge may have left behind for SW to inherit. However, no amount of stats will convince me that SW is a better coach than Madge.

Evidence of some of the things being said in this thread (not necessary by you), are not based on fact.

No one would seriously argue that point even SWs biggest apologist. But surely the question is - Is it fair/sensible to offer SW another year on his contract - regardless of his relative merits against Madge. At the moment there is enough evidence to suggest that it WOULD be reasonable to offer another year. And if he wins SL then offer 3 years.

IMO even if we win nothing he deserves another year, and unless we can get a top coach - Madge wants to return, which I doubt or Sean Edwards or Andy Farrell fancy returning from the dark side - then stick with what you've got.

Isn't there enough evidence from the past 15 years to suggest IT COULD GET A WHOLE LOT WORSE!!!

JJ
That wasn't the point I was making. We are playing a slightly different game (more attractive?) under Wane. Wane has lost a LOT of experience, and IMO is doing o.k.

Could he do better, of course, but then so could have Madge.
Wane was Brett Finch brainfart away from getting us to the GF last year, but he lost and he's in the minus column.

IF he gets us to Wembley and/or the GF this year then he will get in the plus column.
If he fails to get to either then I wouldn't be surprised to see him replaced, although IMO that's necessarily the right move, it would depend on who was available.

Although what all of this has to do with Andy Powell I'm not sure, but it appears the usual suspects have driven it this way.

Good point.

Too many threads are being hijacked at the moment to turn it into an anti-Wane/Lenagan agenda driven rant. There are other threads on here discussing both so I suggest people use the appropriate threads.

Where there any mitigating circumstances that meant we should have kept Noble?

Coaches get judged on results. I have felt for some time IL would give Wane his years option and he may justify that on circumstances with players having left (even if that is partly down to decisions made by IL anyway). Beyond that and I doubt he will be kept on if there is no trophy success.

IL expects finals and expects year on year improvement. It may be a tall order to deliver that with the squad changes that are going on but that is where Wane finds himself.

If Wane accepts losses of players like Mossop and probably Sam and says to IL we can still be a success I reckon IL will take that at face value and expect results. No results, no job.

Same with the debate over Wane doing things differently to Madge. Wane said he could improve on Madge. Fair enough that is how I expect IL will judge him.

And what has that to do with Andy Powell?

As you are a mod could/should you not move these posts to a Shaun Wane thread?

Please do not start a SW thread until I have got my popcorn.

Because Shaun Wane had a 'duty of care' not to feed 6ft4 18 stone Andy Powell to the wolves

Wane Out!