Like for like, I like it if you know I mean.

Would agree - 7 matches is the norm - ask Rangi.

Rangi is a nut job with a heap of previous... The loon should be sent packing...

Absolutely nothing in it.

And how is this different to Sam Tomkins? He can't catch a cold so we will always have this problem.
And as for 7 matches for Powell? I think some people have been smoking wacky bacca , what he did and what anti Wigan supportors wanted to see are 2 different things he actually tackled his backside not his knees.

If it is the same incident I am thinking about nobody has anything to worry about.
When the ref called Lockers over he said "I didn't blow up for a cannonball tackle it was for you (meaning lockers)making an attempted shoulder charge".
In the playback you can see Lockers charging in half with the shoulder and chest as he does, that was why the penalty was given.

Powell went with real force at the back of Tilse's knees. He got his head in the wrong position and his face hit Tilse in the back. If he hadn't led with his face a dead cert cannonball tackle. That was fortunate for Tilse. The Rovers players at the ruck were not happy.
Reckon Powell will get at least a warning if not a game or two. Maybe ´lockers' will get one for the shoulder charge.
Lost count how many times Mickey Mouse slapped our players at the ruck as he was running off. The look on McCarthy´s face when he was slapped by him was bemusement anger then hilarity. Your hooker is a f##king imbecile and liability. Long may you pick him.

He penalised Powell for going in after he had shouted held and said it wasn't a cannonbal tackle. The Lockers shoulder charge was another incident when the HKR player lost the ball in the tackle.

Rouges I definitely heard the Ref say it wasn't for a cannonball tackle it is for the shoulder charge, not certain if it was for the same incident.
But if you say they were two different incidents I stand corrected, more important things to do now I am off down to the Club with the family.

There was 2 incidents with Powell involved 1 definitely was a cannon ball tackle i think our hooker grabbed Powell straight after

Nilled some opponents struggling to put out a team. Can't see a win in the next month

I agree especially with our poor away form

Completely wrong but don't let that stop you.

Whether it's your game or not (which it is, at least in part - unless you're suggesting Wigan prefer slow PTB) - the fact remains that on the front foot your backs are as good as any in the league.

Granted, the fullback position is a bit of an issue at the moment. But overall I thought the backs (including the halves) stood up pretty well.

That game was won and lost purely in the forwards. In the first half your pack stood up pretty well against Hull KR's bigger and more aggressive pack. But in the second half it was the same old problem. Going forward your props and hooker seemed to lose interest in scrapping for those one or two extra yards which make all the difference. This created a yardage deficiency which was further exacerbated by the smaller guys in your back row exhausting themselves tackling Hull KR's bigger men. If you watch the video there's a palpable upsurge in Hull's efforts with twenty minutes to go (initially after a confidence-building defensive stand on their goal line and then in response to the distressed signals your back row was giving).

Admittedly Hull KR's try involved a fair slice of luck. But when you're not taking chances and tiring rapidly it's only a matter of time before your opponent sees momentum swing his way. As stated, I just don't think it's wise playing Bateman and Farrell for extended periods together against sides like Hull KR.

Totally agree with Mugwump about our very lightweight second row. Farrell and Bateman must be totally shot as the second half progresses. When I saw them both named in the second row with a half fit loose forward behind them I thought then that the writing was on the wall. Not sure that Wane had many more options though with our injuries at present.