And in two of those posts your only response was to criticise me for having the brass neck to point out something that I feel was worthy of criticism.

Just so everyone is aware, could you explain the credit and debit system you want us to follow. How many positive posts do we have to submit before we past the threshold of being able to post a negative one so you don't get upset?

I'll post what I want, when I want, about whatever I feel like, which doesn't seem to be an issue with most of the adults on here.

And the fact I hate Lenagan. Those 2005 defeats were under a different owner, therefore don't count.

You do you mate

Most surprising half of all time quite possibly but not the worst. Comfortable against 13 vs a total capitulation against 12.

Never felt as shell shocked at a game before and pretty much everyone seemed the same.

As most of you will know I definitely fall more in the positive than negative poster bracket but I have to agree with Andy. I was there for the Saints drubbing (but thankfully missed the Leeds) and this was worse than both of those in my opinion. Not in absolute terms of the score, of course but there's more to it than simply that.

The teams that took a drubbing back then were demoralised and struggling teams lacking in quality. They started those games badly and finished them worse! at Saints I remember Chris Ashton getting cheered like he'd scored the winning try at Wembley just for making a half decent run. I remember the singing of "Always look on the bright side of life" and I also remember the team trying, albeit it whilst being completely outclassed.

Compare and contrast to last night. We sit at the top of the league having just put an unbeaten month together in April. We had 6 players deemed international quality and the current leader of the MOS. We had 13 v 12, had completely dominated them for 40 mins and, for God's sake, had an 8 point cushion! I have rarely seen a team so comprehensively collapse when holding all the cards.

Last night was, in context, the worst half by Wigan I have ever seen, without question.

If you take effort and attitude v talent and ability you’d be hard pressed not to conclude it wasn’t our worst half.

The first half didn’t promise much for the second IMO. Leeds were there for the taking, 1man down, playing dismally and seemingly no fight in them. Only being 8 points up was farcical, we should have been 20-30points up by the time Tetevano was sent off. And what little we had switched on for the first half, we ensured it was turned off for the second and just went into total shutdown.

This half has been coming. We weren’t great v Wakey, abysmal v Hull and Leeds made the Hull loss look unlucky. It’s clear we’re looking at a side hammered by injuries, down on confidence and looking like out of ideas.

It’s not irreparable but something has to change and I don’t think it’s too drastic;

1/ Cust to 9 or 13 (spelled with good defenders alongside him)
2/ Rocky to partner Smith

Game plan just needs to be kept simple, plus 1’s from dummy half, runs back into the ruck, make the opposition forwards work in D, shift them around. Use props as battering rams and use our agile back rowers off the back of the props. Compact the defensive line and expose space out wide. I don’t think we have the quality of confidence to be able to throw it around at will or play off the cuff. For me we won’t go far wrong playing a Wane style game plan and whilst it’s not particularly entertaining rugby it’s effective.

Poor choice by the coach for last night and the blame rests with him and his coaching staff.

We went into the game with 1 prop on the bench who is lazy, at bare minimum you need 2 x props on the bench and have done since 1998.

Shorrocks was a stop gap at 6, he, Powell and Smithies are too similar, just tackling machines but no real attacking threat. To have Cust AND O’Neill on the bench was a waste of a bench spot because Cust could play 9 but what’s the point in starting him off the bench? If he’s not fit then play him in the reserves, if he is fit then start him.

Abbas Miski is not a winger, he wants to come flying off his wing all the time so is he really a centre?

What’s up with Thornley, against Wakefield in the reserves he ran hard as he did against Hull FC but in this game he went hiding, don’t think he took a drive in the first half.

These are all issues that presented themselves in the game and should have been rectified by the coaching staff, now just because Lockers and Tommy were class players who worked hard and played very well in a structure it doesn’t mean they have an attacking rugby brain that Briers had, we need another Briers is what we are lacking.

Poor choice by the coach for last night and the blame rests with him and his coaching staff.

We went into the game with 1 prop on the bench who is lazy, at bare minimum you need 2 x props on the bench and have done since 1998.

Shorrocks was a stop gap at 6, he, Powell and Smithies are too similar, just tackling machines but no real attacking threat. To have Cust AND O’Neill on the bench was a waste of a bench spot because Cust could play 9 but what’s the point in starting him off the bench? If he’s not fit then play him in the reserves, if he is fit then start him.

Abbas Miski is not a winger, he wants to come flying off his wing all the time so is he really a centre?

What’s up with Thornley, against Wakefield in the reserves he ran hard as he did against Hull FC but in this game he went hiding, don’t think he took a drive in the first half.

These are all issues that presented themselves in the game and should have been rectified by the coaching staff, now just because Lockers and Tommy were class players who worked hard and played very well in a structure it doesn’t mean they have an attacking rugby brain that Briers had, we need another Briers is what we are lacking.

It was the polar opposite of the Leeds play off defeat, where we went with 4 props on the bench and got injuries in the backs. Ultimately the only other prop he had available was Harvie Hill but he should’ve played him. I don’t question anything about Peet in the slightest, other than I think he has a reluctance to play young players in ‘proper’ games (not dead runners or games where he’s resting everyone). He’s a young coach himself and it feels like he wants to maximise the experience he can get in to the 17.

I don't think it was a team selection issue - more of a mentality one. That will hurt Peet as its essentially the central tenent of his approach to coaching - developing togetherness, resilience and a strong team culture. Without much innovation/creativity with the ball, when the mentality isn't up to scratch Wigan are maybe exposed a little.

Oh, I agree, I don’t think not picking Harvie Hill makes a difference to that result. It was just a response to the post above that mentioned not having enough props in the side. That had nothing to do with the result but it could do on another day and I just feel Peet has a bit of Brian Noble about him, in that he seems to pick his side in order of seniority and if that leaves us short of a prop, a halfback or whatever, he is fine with that. It’s easy to say ‘play a kid’ when you’re sat on your backside, watching it with a beer in your hand though (like me).

I take your point about the approach.. We don’t look as slick as last year and you wonder if the Briers exits has impacted on that. I do think we’ve taken an approach this year of targeting blocks of games, rather than going hard every week and that is also impacting on how slick we are with the ball. The visible lift in intensity for Leigh, Saints and Wire was unreal and the drop off after has been even more obvious. I think the next plan would’ve been to target the cup game, HKR, Magic and Saints away. I think we’ll see a huge lift again but unfortunately last night may have hit the sides confidence that hard that even going through the gears in terms of intensity may not be enough.

Cust doesn’t deserve a spot in the 17. He is probably the worst halfback I have seen at Wigan since the days of our relegation. Austin had a field day against him. We need a genuine No 6 not a makeshift. Cust does not have the pace or technical ability to play in that role, at least when Shorrocks was in that position our defence was much better. The only solution is to give Hampshire a gig, Smith badly needs some assistance.

What do you see in Cust?

You don’t think having enough props was an issue? Our props were knackered in the 2nd half and needed subbing.

We could’ve done with another yes but I don’t think it changes the result in the slightest. A lack of props didn’t make us throw ridiculous intercept passes, fall off tackles (from the start of the second half) or generally act like deers caught in headlights. If we’d have put Harvie Hill in (as I would’ve done and would do on Saturday), I don’t see the result changing because it was all attitude based IMO.