To be honest I still want a 13 who can play. Not just another unit to ‘lump it up’.
Over the years with the likes of Faz and Lockers we’ve been blessed with a 13 who can play. At times the 13 jumper has provided the spark we needed when the chips were down; I wouldn’t be happy with just an out and out prop as our long term 13.

But who? I honestly don’t know.

In terms of forwards I’d seriously be talking to Sam Burgess. Many reckon his days in the NRL are numbered; with a few injuries etc. With his brother already being part of our team he might want a crack at SL before calling it a day. He’d still be a massive force and presence in SL.

Additionally I hope we’re still in communication with Ryan Sutton. He’s benefiting greatly from NRL competition; yet long term might not be good enough to gain a long term contract, would love him and Sammy B in cherry and white as we lose the likes of Clubb, Naverette, Flower and Lockers in years to come.

It looks like Sam Burgess may be set to retire completely because of injury. That would be a massive shame but reports suggest that his shoulder is a real mess.

I didn’t say Clubb hurt people mode or Partington ability to drag teams in to a scrap was a positive, it was a comment about their limits as players in that play off series.

When I say balance, I mean that the presumed go forward that George Burgess will bring will hopefully offset the weaknesses of the likes of Flower, who isn’t a prop who’ll roll you forward time and again but he does bring other qualities. To have four or five props who are the complete package in both attack and defence is unrealistic and something we’ve never had. Players have strengths and weaknesses and if we have two props who can churn out big metres then we have a foundation. The point was that in the play offs we didn’t have that. We had four props who couldn’t make any ground (for varying reasons-Clubb being a tool, Flower not being match fit and so on) and we got battered because of it. We should be in a much better position starting off 2020 and players like Flower and Partington can hopefully feed off George Burgess and Vice Versa.

As much as I’d like to see Sam Burgess in a Wigan shirt, his days aren’t just numbered in the NRL but also as a player in RL due to a debilitating shoulder injury if the Aussie press is to be believed. Would be a huge gamble and one too far (should the rumours about his shoulder be true).

I have come to the conclusion that we must try French at 6 for at least a few games at the start of the year. It might work, it might not but what have we to lose? If it works we have a lot to gain with his acceleration and agility he could be lethal. He also has a bit of a trick short kicking game on him which could be improved with practice from what ive seen. If a crapper like Fages can play half back and win a GF then surely French who has more natural talent can do it.

I understand your point mate; just don't agree with it. You say the 'go forward that George Burgess will bring with hopefully offset the weaknesses of the likes of Flower'-this is exactly my point; all props should have the basic attributes to their game; one is go forward, you say it's unrealistic and something we've never had; I also disagree. Plays do have strengths and weaknesses but to say some will be missing a key attribute means they're not good enough and don't have the skillset needed to be a well-rounded prop who we should have at our club. It's this drop in standards which sees us with an ineffective pack.

"Flower and Partington can hopefully feed off George Burgess and Vice Versa"-What do you mean by this? it's a very vague remark...do you expect to see Partington and Flower to suddenly churn out the meters cos Burgess might be?

The penny has finally dropped.
Also Fages? he's been great for Saints this season. Difference between Fages and French; Fages has been playing under a good coach.

I guess time will tell on the extent on his health and fitness. Never like seeing a player forced due to retire to injury; but realistically it's part of the game.

Flower can make ground to a reasonable degree is my point, it’s not earth shattering and when he’s being expected to be your main prop it’s not enough but with somebody like Burgess alongside him, then hopefully George smashes the metres out, Flower does his usual solid effort and suddenly you’re better off then we would be with Flower and Clubb side by side. I totally get what you’re saying in that the basic minimum of any prop should be to make ground through the middle but players are going to do that to varying degrees. Flower and Clubb can do it when they’re on form but they’ll never do a Walmsley and Thompson and smash out 150m on a regular basis. If Burgess can do that then I do think the others can feed off that. If a defence is scrambling to stop big bodies like Burgess and Bullock rolling forward then it should give Flower, Clubb, Partington and co more room to work in, it should also give Sam Powell more space and make his job easier.

You can’t tell me average Joes like Amor and LMS haven’t filled their boots this year on the back of the damage that Walmsley and Thompson have done. That’s a prime example of what I mean when I say they can hopefully feed of George Burgess. On the flip side the likes of Flower and Partington are 100% effort and aggression in defence and Burgess will hopefully find his job easier defensively because of that.

Top and bottom of it is that I’m much happier with our prop options going in to 2020 then I was going in to 2019.

The improvements Holbrook has dragged from some of those players has been staggering really. It will be interesting to see if they can keep those levels up next year.

We probably do and probably will is the short answer to that, but if it doesn’t work which is my fear, then we need a viable back up plan.

As for Fages he was already a good player before Holbrook IMO. Holbrook just took him and players like Zeb Taia and Dominic Peyroux to another level.

That's the whole point, you say "players are going to do that to varying degrees" this is the point; our props can't do it to the standard which we should demand; this is factual as shown with what happens during the game and the stats from the game; it's not really up for dispute when it's literally what happened in the game with the stats to support it-they aren't good enough at the attributes required in the prop; one clear attribute is meters made.

It seems like you're saying Burgess' potential stats make up for Flowers lack of meters? "hopefully George smashes the metres out, Flower does his usual solid effort and suddenly you’re better off" This doesn't change Flowers performances or potential stats does it? How much better off would we be if all of our props did as required; made meters.

Your next point is also questionable: "You can’t tell me average Joes like Amor and LMS haven’t filled their boots this year on the back of the damage that Walmsley and Thompson have done" Hard to quantify 'damage done' but what isn't hard to quantify is meters made; a recognised stat. IF Amor and LMS (who has actually played more at 13) meters are good then they deserve credit for that; I wouldn't possibly say; "oh well you're only making meters cos the other two lads have done the damage"

Top and bottom of it is... our props weren't good enough. Performances and stats support that statement.

Agree with this. From how they were performing before Holbrook to now. Which is what worries me at Wigan, I don't see us winning or improving at all under Lam.

Quite correct,from moment one under Holbrook the change was if not startling it caught the eye that’s for sure,I’m sorry but this simply hasn’t been the case with Lam.

It has been clear to me but in reverse. How much is down to the loss of Tomkins and Bateman or because of Lam im not sure. Perhaps a bit of both?