Quote: sergeant pepper "I'm not saying I agree with everything WK is saying, but I think people are missing some of the points he's trying to make. We undoubtedly had success under IL - that's a fact & one shown by the stats. It was a decent period trophy wise.
The point was however that we should have had way more & I agree with that. You look at that 2010 team and there was a core to it that, if IL had kept it together for a decade, could have been absolutely dominant. Instead we've come out even with two other sides. I don't think that's massively controversial to say.
If I had one criticism of IL, he never seemed (imo) to want to be dominant. He was happy picking up and sharing the trophies. Of course he wanted to win everything, but not winning everything didn't seem to cut him as deep as it should.
I want to see us become absolutely ruthless under Danson. Simply the best on and off the field. I want the 80's and 90's Wigan back. I want opposition fans to already know, in Jan, that both trophies will have cherry and white tassels on them by the end of the season.
Realistic? Probably not, but it has been done before.'"
The problem I have with it is that it's a sweeping statement that makes the argument that "Everything" is/was wrong with what Tuesday club did when in reality they got (and I appreciate this is opinion) 80/90% of things of right.
The statement (and don't forget certain people have pushed this argument/narrative for years and years, usually after a defeat but strangely never after a Win or any success) doesn't acknowledge that if the club had taken the opposite stance 100% of the time that they think created any issues, such as resigning certain players, or not offering coaching roles etc to certain players we "May" not have been as successful as we have been.
As NK said, we deffo left 3 or 4 trophies out there whilst Sts/Leeds imo maximised their trophy haul better with maybe each only not winning 1 or 3 trophies they maybe could have, and winning a couple they maybe in hindsight shouldn't have.
But even with all that we finished level with them. But pretty much none of that had anything to do with IL
As for IL not caring about defeats as much as he should have, and it not cutting him deep. Seriously?
Not sure what you want him to do, have hissy fits in the press, scream and shout at players/coaches in public?
I'm glad to say that they way he conducted himself over his tenure was very professional, very considered and was well respected by pretty much everyone, every club and administrators within the game (I'm not sure Gazza Hetheringron may agree but who cares).
The 2010 team improved in some ways after that, Charnley/finch/Hoffman etc
It had to develop in later years with natural elements such as Deacon retiring, carmont retiring plus others such as Riddell, Coley, Fielden issues such as Hock and Gleeson
Salary cap issues constrict certain things as Saints are finding out now, as Leeds are finding out and have done for the last 5/6 years
We made 4 GFs in. Row and won 2, we should have won all 4
We made 5 Gfs in 6 years and our bad year in the league we still WON a WCC and had a Wembley final that we should have won.
I see people praising the club for its spirit now and togetherness, the way Peet galvanised the club etc.
But dont forget the same people wanting to criticise every minute aspect of the the club if we don't win anything, basically intimating that if wed have just done this or just done that like they suggest we would have won more or won everything, if they'd have had their way would have got rid of, created a different culture at the club that could have made things worse.
A lot of them are the same people that wouldn't have given Peet the job, would have fired Radlinksi, would have forced Leneghan to sell to get any old no mark in for short term money gain, would have got rid of respected players that played significant roles in winning trophies long after so called experts would have got rid of them, and then expect the players to feel exactly as connected to the club as they do now and still sign long term contracts etc etc.
Without rads/leneghans understanding there's no way Bevan French comes back, without the stuff they do behind the scenes who's tonsay players would have signed for the club, because they admire the pathways and opportunities the club provide outside of rugby.
As I've always said, players may not have signed contracts and left earlier than they did without the pragmatic approach the club took, take Sam Tomkins, he basically said he was going 2011, but leneghan managed to get him to sign a 4 Yr deal and even though he only did 2 of those we got £1 million and Sam Tomkins back in 16-18
I could go on, but those that want to slag/criticise Lenegan, Rads, Wane etc will continue to do so and will take every opportunity to do so. I'll state my position clearly, NONE OF THEM have the slightest idea about how to run a club and treat players and staff etc successfully
All.of which whilst dealing with a salary capped sport, competing against what Leeds fans will tell you was the greatest Leeds teams they've ever had in their history, a very good St Helens for the last 4 years, a Warrington team that in 2010 through to about 18 should have won more than they did who spent big, and did a lot of the things these people suggest we should have done!
All of this whilst taking over a basket case of a club on 2008, dealing with Covid and all of that for the last 2/3 years
All of that whilst the scales of balance have tipped heavily in the NRL and RU favour
The bloke could easily be the best chairman, certainly owner, we've ever had, he also did it with his own money
To state that we could have dominated if we just wanted it more etc is, we'll I can't find them words
