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?

Are you saying Pat is more likely to kick them than Sam?
Are you saying the man known as Superman doesn't do more than just kick? Do you remember where we had issues in the WCC?

Anyway, nice attempt to take me off the OP topic.

If you want to discuss the impact of Pat's absence we can do it in another thread.

I believe it is.

Our forwards? The fact they were better than us?

? What has this got to do with OP?

You asked the question.