I don't see it as a matter of accommodating Escare, but having a back on the bench who can also cover 9 is value. I don't think Escare should be billed as a FB anymore, but more of a utility player. A player who can cover 1,2,5,6,7,9 and not let the side down has value. Plus with his quick feet and pace he can and will cause issues, namely around the ruck with a QPTB. He can and has broken defences open and can offer a spark from off the bench when running at tired legs.

Escare isn't good enough to challenge Hardaker to be a starting fb, to be honest, for me, and this is including Tomkins, Zak could be the best all-round fb in the SL. His defence is outstanding, he's broken field running is also outstanding, when he beds in and learns where and when to chime in the line he'll be a MOS level player again.

When I look at other options on the bench I see forwards and perhaps Sammut, who for me, has still to prove himself and fight his way into our 17.

You could argue tonight would have proved this point of view when Sarge did not return for the second half but it was Isa who came on. Now Isa can cover second row, 13 and centre and given he does you have to choose which is the better utility player? Is two props, Isa and Escare better then three props and either one of those two?

I think we will see Isa on the bench more often then Escare because he's going to go to 13 when Lockers inevitably comes off.




If he'd not got banned he'd have started both games IMO. The only thing that will (or should) keep Powell in the 17 is if TL just can't do the minutes anymore.

I think you'd be arguing in purely hypotheticals to be honest. Isa covered centre, but who knows what would have happened if Escare would have been on the bench. Who knows what would have happened if another player was injured. It's all hypothetical. My belief that Escare adds something to our team starting from the bench remains.
Isa to 13? No, that would be Hamlin, who's always been a middle.

Sammut starting both games? Possibly yes, which for me is madness. Roll back several months when he was at London and we were going unbeaten in the playoffs and then won the GF with Williams and Tommy. Who then in their right mind would have suggested Sammut should/would replace anyone in our 17.

To get Escare on to the bench we’d need to get Tony Clubb fitter or leave him out looking at last night. He looked knackered after 5 minutes of both his spells and if we’re to then bring Escare in for another forward like Navarette or Isa we’d need to see a real increase in minutes from the other forwards. I think Clubb did a total of around 20-25 mins last night which isn’t enough from a senior forward.

I do seem to recall Clubb taking a few weeks to get going in other seasons, so hopefully it’s just a case of finding his match fitness.

Honestly think Clubb is past it.

As I recall, you were amongst many of us who were very critical of our halves and their lack of creativity throughout last season and agreed with me that we needed to prioritise signing a scrum half. We improved when we switched TL and Powell for the Super 8s but I’d still argue that TL is better as a 9 than a 7 and he’s definitely a better 9 than Powell.
We brought in a scrum half, albeit not one we might have wanted but we have to try him. I’d say Sammut and Williams need to be given 8 to 10 games together to see how they go and TL goes to 9. If he can do 80 mins, great and if not, Powell should have a bench spot. By no means a scapegoat but Powell should not be in the 17 if everyone is available.

I thought he had a really good season last year in fairness but this new interchange set up and the various ways of speeding the game up will test forwards in different ways. So far we’ve seen mobile, fit forwards like Flower and Bullock thrive but Clubb struggled.

You're right, I was all for signing a new creative half, as we looked flat, lifeless and void of ideas at times last season. But, who am I or anyone for that matter to drop a 6 and 7 that led the team to an unbeaten run in the playoffs and then to win a GF? In the last god knows how many games we've only lost 1 with Tommy and Williams in the halves, that's all, 1 game v Saints away at the start of the season. What would be the logic in changing a winning team to accommodate Sammut?

In that 10 game spell it was our defence which was the main reason for winning the GF. Only Saints away and Cas at home (8s) can I recall us attacking with any fluidity

Does anyone know the attendance? Leeds' following was pitiful, and I've never seen the Boston stand so empty. Sky showing it on the free to view sports channel may have put a few off too.

11,200

Thanks. Lowest crowd for a regular season Wigan v Leeds game since September 2002.

Get your own house in order , only 10,000 home fans for the Champions first home game of the season !

The quality of the opposition often dictates the size of the crowd. I'm not sure whether to be disappointed that only 11200 wanted to watch Wigan v Leeds, or be pleased that 11200 wanted to watch Wigan take on a side that narrowly avoided relegation last season, and will probably be in the bottom half this season.

Let's see if I can catch me a Rhino fish....

Nonsense. Yes the D was good. But to disregard the halves in such a run of games and the final is just ridiculous.