The issue though is that a well drilled team will nearly always best an off the cuff team (See Australia 1972 to 2000) against GB
Weve tried to structure to match them and theyve moved on. And they will.co tongue to be in advance of us due to the advantageous they have over us from money to player pool currently.

I suppose the question is would be people like a less structured game at the expense of other things like Winning.

I believe that a reduction in substitutes to 6 will tire players enough to allow more time/space for ball players rather than what the game did 20 years ago increasing the substitutions to 10 to try and have the 13 players on the field playing at 100% of their abilities for 80mins.

There should always be a fatigue element in the game, it would be like giving boxers 10mins rest between each round and then wondering why just the biggest win/strongest win.

Which 80 minutes are you thinking of? I thought our best three performances were Catalans at home (1st one), Warrington away in the cup and probably Hull KR at home. We looked decent in the first half against Cas at their place but fell away badly.

Those aside, I agree its not a pretty sight. 2nd place yes but how many wins were impressive? We were grinding out results but playing so far within ourselves.

I completely agree with the over coaching and robotic point but from time to time we do see the teams that play with flair and off the cuff such as Cas and more recently St Helens. As much as we may complain about structure and robotics; it’s what won us trophies under both Maguire and Wane. There’s a balance to be found IMO.

I get where you’re coming from re substitutes but not quite sure I entirely agree. I’m for the rolling on/off substitutes to be honest, I have a soft spot for impact players who more often than not are proven to be good game players too.

Catalan at home. Was a genuine excellent 80mins. Really notable issues in the other games. I think I could have forgiven a lot of the performances if we turned up v Salford in the playoffs at home; but that was a truly dismal display.

At the end of the day it's a team game, furthermore a squad game. To get the most out of the each play you all need to know what each person is doing and when they're doing it. So you employ set structures which allow a fluid team attack with accurate passing and movement and everyone know's what each person is doing. Additionally, if a structure is in place it makes it easier to replace injured or suspended players, as the new player knows the structure of the team and will have more chance of success slotting into a well drilled well structured team.
Additionally if a team is dependent on a half or two to create the play...what happens if the half is injured? A new half steps in and isn't as effective, meaning the team aren't half as effective.

The truth is that a player can be creative and play 'off the cuff' rugby when the time is right even within the structure, the team will never run the set plays for each and every set.

3rd attempt at replying to this
You could argue quite strongly that Wigan fans don't just want to win in era of winning trophies but declining attendances with many ex fans criticising the quality of the play.

For me there is a difference between a well drilled team and being over coached. Last year Saints were an exceptionally well drilled team however, they also threw the ball about when a player thought it was the right play. A good coach who believed in his team to let them [lay a bit.
The game is about players not coaches but I'm probably just too biased in my opinions

I think that more substitutions has been a major factor in the decline of the game as a spectacle and a reduction in skill levels across all positions. This is particularly so in the forwards where the use of 5 or 6 props in a game has been pretty disastrous and i really dislike of a prop at 13.

Maybe we have had the wrong balance? Winning trophies and reduced attendances sounds like a oxymoron to me.

Sorry to disagree but I dont in general like "impact" players. If they were any good they would be in the starting 13.
Name me half a dozen great or even really good impact players?
I know that you will name some and im sure they may be decent players but if they are that good why put them on the bench?? Will your list of impact players include any backs?

Multiple substitutions leads to athletes rather than rugby players.

I can name some but I don’t see the point. You clearly aren’t a fan of impact players, which is fine by the way it’s not a criticism of you but me naming some won’t change your mind.

Re balance perhaps we did but it was successful. I would much rather a SW type style that was consistently winning trophies and beating our nearest and dearest rivals than a free-flowing, no idea what we’re doing style we adopted last season which resulted in us being torn to pieces by Saints each time we played them and in reality we were never really serious contenders for the SL trophy.

I’m not convinced Lam has the credentials or ability to strike that balance. We have the players to do it but it’s the coach where the biggest question mark is for me.

Good post mate. The irony with Lam is all he claimed to improve has gone backward. We're not getting free-flow rugby; we're getting a disorganised mess.