Weren't all the 5 props under contract at the time IL took over????????

What was he supposed to do then? Sign 2 x more and have weaknesses in the Backs????????

he could have off loaded the poor playters and brought in better by now.
he managed it with gleeson and mathers. off loading mathers was a minor miracle. so he should certainly be able to do it with the forwards . thats just my opinion anyhow

Sign 1 prop and Gleeson rather than Mathers and Roberts. I think Roberts will come good for us but not a player we need.

That's about the size of it. The advantage to having roberts is it offers the chance of rotating the backs as form/fatigue/tactics (i know i know) demands. However, it's a luxury in the backs when we need the basics in the pack.

This is really the issue. They are not performing and so it is THE issue that needed sorting out. Packs win matches, the backs decide by how many.

A stubborn, "We have 5 props so I ain't buying any more" attitude does not solve the problem.

We have signed backs we don't really need or could do without which are IMO Roberts, Phelps and maybe Smith as well. That ought to be enough cap space for at least one top class prop.

So what if we signed another top class prop we ended up with Fielden sat in the stands watching a prop equivalent to his former self doing the job for us?

Better that than having a really good back line that is running around behind a beaten pack. Barrett was wasted in the two year she was here IMO.

IMO the signing of Roberts was completely an IL thing and so given the pack is poop I think it is fair to say IL can take the blame for not rectifying the situation with better recruitment.

I am sure IL thinks the players we do have in the pack should do better but he must have realised by now this isn't going to happen.

Dave

Which props would you have signed that would have been a marked improvement on what you've got though? Not that many have changed clubs that would have made a great deal of difference and didn't Carvell price himself out of a deal with you?

Wigan did try to sign Carvell (they actually thought they had got him) but then wouldn't get involved in a THIRD upping of the price, and left the auction.

The way Carvell priced himself out of the deal if correct (upping the price several times) is one issue but the signing of Gleeson for a six figure sum shows players are available for the right price.

They don't have to be out of contract. Fielden wasn't.

Dave

You make it sound criminally negligent by the chairman. Yet look at what you're actually saying: we've got 5 props, but they're not working out so we need to buy more.

Where does that mentality end?

If you've got underperforming players, you don't keep on buying new men for that position, with more and more men sitting in the stand.

He inherited a situation where we had 5 props on contract. At least two of those props are, or recently were, international standard. Surely it's a better option to try to get the coach to bring them back to form rather than spending money on yet more props?

To call it a stubborn attitude is one way to look at it, but you could also call it's a realistic appraisal of a difficult situation.

Very true Cruncher.

It gets to the stage were you have to make the best out of what you've got. If so called less talented coaches like Kear can do it with players who have never reached the heights the likes of Fielden have then why can't Noble?

Wigan is a team that is majorly underperforming for the players it has. IL can't keep getting new ones all the time and sooner or later it’s going to be the coach that has to leave.

I think that’s one a lot of people can agree on

The stadium fiasco is a memory that will live in the mind of wigan fans for a long long time.The biggest name in rugby league made to play out of thier own county by the ex owner still gets on my nerves now.

On the playing side, there isnt really much he can do, he took on the contracts when he took over the club. I await next season when several players contracts expire and the end of the current season.

The big mistake he made was the Stadium cockup last season, moving us to Widnes for the play off game will stick long in peoples memories.

Aldo he mentioned in the most recent fans forum that it was his fault that they did not get the fixture to the stadium management in time to book the GF spot this season.

No, but either the club needs to want to get rid, like Gleeson, or you need to unsettle the player enough by offering them a big wage packet. I think Leneghan is trying to get away from that way of working though.

Didn't you also allegedly enquire about Moore too?

Correct. What else do you want us to do? Stick with the 5 under performing players for the duration of their contracts and say Ho-hum when the pack gets battered yet again?

We either try and loan out one or two of them or if there is (as I believe there was) room under the cap, we get an extra prop in and simply drop the worst of them. Then when that players contract is up it isn't renewed.



What do you mean "more and more players"? A single top class prop would make a great deal of difference to the side. I'll say it again but if not signing Phelps, Roberts and Smith meant we could have signed a prop thus leaving Fielden in sat in the stands that would have been good business.

Such a move is not against any rules. It is perhaps a bit radical but so what?



But that has failed and so the alternative is what?



The situation is our pack problems have not been sorted out and action needs to be taken. This is not a new problem either but instead of addressing it, IL has presided over predominantly the recruitment of backs. I guess that is why his failure to sort out the pack is leading the poll that started this thread.

Dave