I don't think that signing Tim Smith, while a slight gamble, was a particularly bad move given the lad's previous form.

Wigan knew he had off-field issues, and his contract reflected this. Barrett was leaving unexpectedly, and the club felt they needed cover at stand-off. Tim Smith, on paper at least, might have been the perfect solution. He had the reputation of being a huge if slightly wayward talent. Indeed, he showed flashes of brilliance throughout his time at Wigan, but his all-round problems were clearly a big distraction for him.

If you're trying to imply (and I'm not saying you are, but it comes over that way) that Wigan fans were running round shouting that Tim Smith was the best signing ever when he first arrived, then I disagree. Everyone I know thought it an interesting signing that possibly could work out for us - and there was certainly enthusiam when he showed what he could do, but there was also a lot of uncertainty regarding his 'issues'.

I doubt that anyone thought he was 'the best thing since sliced bread'.

Noble wasn't available when we signed him. Take your pick of those who would come to the UK (if you favour an NRL coach) or go aggressively after someone like Morgan. If you don't ask you don't get and we had to ask Bradford for Noble.

Noble's record here does speak for itself - not good enough.

Dave

Some were, not all though, some of you are more balanced

He was a gamble signing that didn't pay off. As long as you didn't pay him bucket loads (and I don't think Leneghan will have done) then it's no harm done to your squad, especially as it's given Tomkins the opportunity to make a claim for a first team spot.

In fact, in the long run it may well turn out to be a better signing for Wigan than someone who would have done a decent job for 3 years.

If Noble stays, its important we start next year well and he shows he isnt all about peaking, but with potentially only one signing we will have the most settled side in years and years, and lets not discount how important that will be.

As for those saying that Sam wouldn't be playing if Smith was still here, that simpily isn't the case.

I've read most of the posts here, but not all, so apologies if I am repeating any point that others have already made.

I think Noble is a very good team manager and has brought stability to Wigan and improved the overall infrastructure of the club. He is also good with respect to defense, and instilling in players the need for patience. He has taken us to two semi-finals. So we should give him credit for what he has done for us.

However my problem with him is I think he is dated in terms of his tactics with respect to attacking rugby league, and it is that which has held us back. His approach to attack is "one-up" football, play out your set of tackles and kick for territory. That is why he will always fall back on experienced, over-the-hill players if given a choice. And it is boring for us spectators.

I am not sure he knows how to blend attacking players into a team. My own view is that the players are inventing it as they go along, and it is really the unpredictability of Sam Tomkins which is giving us that flair right now and our current success.

I think our support play on attack is diabolical at times. When Feka made his big rampaging run, there was nobody there to support him, and this happens alot in our games with other breaks that occur.

My own view is that if we decide to keep Brian, then we need to bring in a real attacking coach to support him, who can work with the players to improve their set moves, attacking tactics, creativity, support play, and working out ways to get people like Feka tying up the other teams players and still off-loading in the tackle. I also think we really need to rethink our conditioning, as others have already said.

Otherwise, I am afraid we need to bring in a coach to replace Brian who has more creativity and skill at all parts of the game.

One last point I would make is that the Hock situation should never have occured in my opinion, and that ultimately puts a black mark over Nobles name, IMO. Our culture at the club should have prevented this situation - but the rumours are we have had a culture which has enabled, if not encouraged it to occur. This is a direct responsibility of the coach, to my way of thinking.

So on balance I would welcome a new coach.

The reason people say this is because their opinion reflects the way Noble has selected his sides over three seasons and how he picked the side when Smith was available. What is your opinion based on?

Dave

We have our best for and against for years
Are equal second for tries scored
Have made the most offloads
Are equal second for tackle busts
(And whilst im at it our disclipline is much improved)

Those are just a couple of points that dispell the myth that we dont play attacking rugby. Noble has clearly changed our whole attacking structure this season and anyone who cant see it is merely pandering to their hobby horse.

The fact he dropped Tim Smith and played Sam Tomkins.

Second to this, youngsters dont just get given game time, the majority get their chance due to injury in any sport. I dont understand the hysteria. IN football big clubs use the league cup, we cant do that, so we are starting to and should continue to use The Championship, Farrell, O'Carroll and Ainscough should be next to go out on loan.

We have got to get a side that plays well and wins games from game 1 of the season in order to get towards top in the table. Can Noble deliver this? I think its unlikely but you cant argue with the fact he gets the side firing at the back end of the year but it leaves too much to do in order to get to Old Trafford.

But he did that once and then brought Smith back into the side. Are you saying Noble would have dropped Smith again?



That is a different issue. What people are saying is Noble would stick with Smith regardless. Tomkins clearly isn't a player who should be loaned out so where would that leave him if Noble picked his side as he always has?

As to the separate issue of youngsters not getting game time that takes us back to the debate about Tomkins getting 1 game last season and a likely minimum of 21 this. It has always been said on here players should be introduced gradually. That can't happen if you rely in injuries to blood young players and I do not think that it has happened at Saints for example. So either the idea a gradual introduction is a good thing has gone out of the window or the way Noble picks his side is contrary to the opinions expressed on here.

Dave

most of the present leeds side were brought in gradually as 17 yr olds IIRC, and its paid off.

our recent coaches have been reluctant to do this over the years....hence we have gone downhill fast from a great side , to a making up the numbers side.

we need a coach who is prepared to do "a Leeds" with all the talented youngsters we have.

dave..........sorry , i mean WPM

Sam wouldn't be in the starting 13 imo.

He'd be on the bench.

If Smith had not been injured then Sam would have less game time as he would have been used from the bench more.

If McIlorum had not been injured than Sam would also probably have got a bit more bench time.

Speaking to IL and BN pre season the plan was to give Sam around 15 games. Injuries have made that change, and we don't have anothr half back in the reserve or academy side ready to come in and give him a rest.

Yes.



It has. DA always brought his "stars" back in straight away and used to say something about "they have earned enough stripes" to do so. Eastmond is only playing because Long is injured. Watkins at Leeds because Toopi was crippled etc etc. Sam got his because Smith was poor and he took it.