If we win on Saturday we are in a much better position than last year to go all the way. We'll have 3 games remaning, and as long as we pick up one win, we'll finish top. This gives us a chance to rest players who may be carrying knocks. Charnley, Sam & Mickey Mac all playing with strapping the last few weeks. This means come playoff time, we'll be fitter, stronger and fresher for the charge to Old Trafford.

I think if we beat Wire on Saturday barring any major cock up [Leeds in the CC Semi style we should make it to OT, whether we win or not, will have to see on the night.

I said on Twitter last night, Wire where playing like that game was almost like a final for them. Now will they be able to maintain that intensity, peak for a cup final, then peak again for the playoffs? A competition they have had an already less than stellar record in, i'm not too sure. Especially with the majority of their big game players the wrong side of 30, I think Wire may run out of Juice come playoff time.

One advantage Wigan do have is the CC final week off. We can play our strongest side safe in the knowledge that we have an easier match against Salford where we can rest the likes of Sam, Finch, SOL if needed. Then throw in the CC final weekend another weeks rest. The dilema for Tony Smith is whether to rest players or which ones?

I've said it on another thread regarding the CC, who ever wins will be the team that wants it most on the day. But whoever wins the CC I cant see them winning the GF as the CC would have taken out too much out of them.

Either way should be a good un on Saturday, shame I'm gonna miss the first half because of work.

Did you really get the impression it was finalesque performance? I saw it more as a perfunctory attacking game with good defence and decent kick-chase. Nothing more really. Saints one dimensional attacking game playing into the hands of our strong defence.

Wire play London a week on Friday, they won't rest anyone for our game.

People who bring up our playoff record and bottling tag forget one thing, in any year we've made the playoffs we've been a mid table side, in theory, really, only once have we lost when we've been expected to win and that was last year.

Bottling is getting to a Grand Final and losing 5 times or a CC Final and constantly being on the losing side.

How a struggling mid table team that has just managed to scrape into playoffs and been beaten usually the first game is a bottling team i don't know?

Since Smith took over we've won the majority of the 'big games', Leeds caught us out last year but it was no fluke as they went on to win the whole thing and tidied up the WCC too.

I'd agree with that, though the Huddersfield defeat in 2010 is probably the one which gives our detractors ammunition to throw our way - The Leeds one last year was more just two evenly matched sides giving it their all, in a contest that could have gone either way.

I think our recent Cup record is ample proof that we are not bottlers, indeed, if a bottlers tag can be thrown about so easily, then you could question Wigan's recent Challenge Cup defeats (barring last year), coupled with how they fell apart in last year's play-offs, similar to us in 2010.

In all seriousness, neither Wire or Wigan are 'bottlers', they have just paid the price for being the only sides to show respect to all THREE competitions and to run out of steam at vital times.

sam=hodgson (both offer different things to their teams)
charnley=riley (both finish, both fast and athletic)
goulding=ratchford (goulding the better , ratchford more useful in general play)
carmont=atkins (carmont the better , atkins more athletic)
thornley<monaghan (monaghan proven great finisher)
finch<briers (both offer the backbone of creativity to the team, briers edging with kicking)
smith-myler? (havent seen enough of smith to truly compare)
lauaki<morley (on form)
mcilorum>monaghan (monaghan not looking fit or anything like he has been the last two years)
mossop=hill (both impressive)
hansen=waterhouse (both good second rowers)
hock=westwood (both beasts)
oloughlin>grix (great all round)

only obvious differences in class i could find man for man in likely teams. and i call it 3-2 to warrington.

Put Tommy and Pat in there and it is a different outcome. Also would have Finch and Hock all day long before Briers and Westwood, but it is all about opinions, good fair post though the wrestler!

Current seasons form, can't argue with that, even the Mike Monaghan one, if it was last year he'd be head and shoulders above McIllorum but he's not that player yet.
The Carmont Atkins one again, 2 different styles of play both suited to the style of their team, one's weakness is anothers strength and vice versa, very fair assessment, the only one's in that i'd question are Tomkins/Hodgson and Hansen/Waterhouse
Forgetting reputations and history i'd go Waterhouse over Hansen and Tomkins over Hodgson.

those two were interesting ones, the sort where all wigan fans would say finch and hock, and all wire fans would say briers and westwood. finch has been brilliant, but i know how much i and others worry about briers, basically we know hes good.


ive seen little of waterhouse but the impression i get is that they are very similar players. unspectacular 2nd rows, different from hock/westwood but both very hard, both run great lines, great in defence. hodgson and tomkins, tomkins has his moments of brilliance, but then i know that id be biased to say tomkins straight off the bat. theyve both had great roles in attack for their teams this year, and both been shown up defensively on occasions. on rethink, i would go tomkins for his recent individual work and seeing that he is top try assister this year, which makes it all the more interesting at 3-3

Waterhouse offers more in attack, his massive frame sucks in three defenders and then he kills teams with his offloads, look how much Atkins is benefitting from having the space that Waterhouse creates.