Whatever floats your boat. If you don't understand something just ask. As the OP poster I am always willing to justify my point, no one has to agree with it. But I will discuss it.

PS I only name call when attacked.

Quote: Lucky XIII "Because I thought the post was a perfectly valid question related to the topic of whether or not HH was missed. I simply asked the question to gain a better understanding of your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to, although I disagree with it) by asking you to clarify a point you made. Namely this bit Sure www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2011 Look at his direct replacement.

Quote: Lucky XIII "Because I thought the post was a perfectly valid question related to the topic of whether or not HH was missed. I simply asked the question to gain a better understanding of your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to, although I disagree with it) by asking you to clarify a point you made. Namely this bit Sure www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2011 Look at his direct replacement.

Quote: Last Son of Wigan "Sure Except that Liam Farrell wasn't Hansen's direct replacement. They are both fully fledged first-team players in their own right. I'd call neither a squad player. Hansen and Farrell were both in the squad when HH was ruled out. His direct replacement (i.e. the player who came into the 17 the week after to replace him) was Chris Tuson. So I urge you to have a look at his direct replacement: www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2011

Quote: Last Son of Wigan "Sure Except that Liam Farrell wasn't Hansen's direct replacement. They are both fully fledged first-team players in their own right. I'd call neither a squad player. Hansen and Farrell were both in the squad when HH was ruled out. His direct replacement (i.e. the player who came into the 17 the week after to replace him) was Chris Tuson. So I urge you to have a look at his direct replacement: www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... eason=2011

“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

I seriously have nothing against Hansen, he's a solid player who works hard. I just have something against the abuse for suggesting he won't be missed.
Lets be honest, we have other players who can do what he can do, thankfully due to the depth we have in our squad.
In comparison if Lockers, Sam or Pat was injured long term we can't directly replace them.

That's the basis of it.

I agree. Our 18 and 30+ point defeats were because of kicking

Quote: Conroy "I agree. Our 18 and 30+ point defeats were because of kicking wigan.rlfans.com/news.php?readmore=989

Quote: Conroy "I agree. Our 18 and 30+ point defeats were because of kicking wigan.rlfans.com/news.php?readmore=989

Regardless of Pat missing the start of the season, he's contribution to the team can be reviewed separately. This, as the OP states is about Hansen.

Faz isn't a replacement for Hansen, he's a teammate playing at just as high a level in the same squad week in, week out. If the subs bench in RL worked the way it did in football, then maybe you'd have a point. But in Rugby League, the 4 on the bench are just as much a part of the squad for the game as the 13 who start on the field.

If you roughly half HH's stats seeing as he'd played 11 compared to Tuson's 6, he still performs consistently better.

And Madge made 2 changes to the 17 the week after Hansen got injured. Joel and Harrison out, Tuson and Goulding in. Surely that's the definition of DIRECT replacement? Or am I missing something?

Ah yes. So we missed 4 kicks that day that cost us did we? Here's me thinking they were the better side and scored more tries than us .

Here's a little quiz question for you:

Hansen is a first team starter for Wigan, he gets injured. Who the following week starts in the 1-13 line up?
The answer will give you his direct replacement.

For an extra point: how many games have Wigan lost in his absence?