Wigan had the best coach for this, Ian Millward, but you got rid of him.

Millward was never afraid to be a bit controversial remember picking second string teams against Bradford and winning Gleeson and Long a few bob down the bookies. Then he wasn't afraid to let Wigan get slapped by Leeds and Saints in league matches, he knew it was what happened at the end of the season that was important.

I think Wigan got rid of Millward too early in 2006. He might have been saving Wigan's form for the playoffs?

Beacuse you need to fall victim of it before it sinks in.

Leeds were in 2005, and since then they have always picked up form going into the playoffs.

At the end of the day in our last 11 matches we faced Warrington twice, St Helens three times and played in the Wembley Cup Final. 6 huge games and only one of them was at DW Stadium. It was just simply too much to contend with and Warrington, St Helens or Leeds would have failed in my view taking on that run with no rest in between.

Yet in 2010 we won the league and the Grand Final under the same play off system as we have now which blows your tired old stance right out of the water.

The idea Leeds or Saints planned their season to finish fifth and third to save themselves for the play offs is a joke. If it were not HKR would be in the GF.

Poor decison by Wigan get rid of a coach when you are stuck at the bottom of SL then steady the ship under Noble then bring in an unknown coach give him a three year plan win the CC and then the SL. So what happens the fools win the SL in year one and the CC in year two!

Here's an idea. Instead of petty name calling and personal insults, why don't you answer the post?

Why the heck citing 2010 is relevant is beyond me.

There is no doubt that MM brought with him tactics, conditioning and a team ethos that was a step above that incumbent within SL at the time. Arguably this was more important than "peaking".

It's 2011 and the other teams are aware of the tactics.

The real issue here is that the regular season is pointless, and certainly the "key" matches vs the likely top 4 are.

So DaveO, what IS your argument? That finishing the season strongly is MORE important than playing well during the season?

Take your point re the run in being difficult Bilko, but that should have been planned for.

For me it was not a peaking time issue more a combination of not resting enough players at the back end of the season - the Crusaders game was a perfect example - we should have had a second string team out for that I do think that was a big mistake. Going into the play-offs some players looked knackered/injured - and you can't get away with players not 100% in games of that intensity - maybe in one game but not over three games

Then losing Mossop, Cross and Hock left the squad lightweight as well and had a major impact.

Still a good season - a CC win and semi-final play-off, hardly a failure.

The regular season is certainly being watered down as each year passes. As Schoey tweeted 'pretty soon its just gonna be 27 pre-season friendlies'.

Next season play the u20s for the first 15 games then just put the first team out from then onwards, we will walk it

A very valid (and under-estimated) point

When Leeds were dominant, the game plan was speed at the ptb, support in numbers and run teams off the park. It worked well for a season, then teams (Wigan in particular) rumbled us, slowed us down at the ptb & knock us off our game plan.

The game is constantly evolving and what's great one season, isn't necessarily great the next. MM is credited with being the first coach to introduce NRL style 'domination' tactics, which again worked brilliantly last season, but not as effective this year, as other teams have developed similar styles.

I guess what makes a great coach is one who keeps up with the evolution of the game - perhaps even one step ahead. As you say, this is more important (and far more difficult) than peaking in September

Firstly congratulations to Leeds and St Helens for getting to the GF, I am looking forward to a great match.

What if all coaches build through the course of the season to peak at the business end? And who's to say they don't. I think Wigan's approach and belief is that they have the players to win every game so that is what they set out to do. During the course of a season they must leave room for testing different approaches where they feel this is necessary and this is where I see a key difference. One approach - and I think this is Wigan's - is that you aim to win the game and try new ideas - another approach is that your first priority in a particular game or run of games is to try new ideas and winning the game is of secondary importance. I think either approach is valid and would back either.

While what happens at the end of the season does depend on your approach it is influenced by all sorts of other things that happen in your team and the others. This year the slow build approach has come out on top, last year the more ruthless approach won through.

All credit to Royce Simmons and Brian McDermott for getting their teams to the GF, I'm pleased for them and feel very relaxed about it. I enjoyed winning the GF and CC and the memories are still very fresh, as a Wigan fan I have been spoiled and I love it. Looking forward to next year - who knows how it will turn out!

Leeds and Saints have managed to hit good form just at the right time. Wigan seem to have felt the effects of no week off all year and a difficult end of season run-in proved to be too much. Not sure about Wire, they were odds on to beat Leeds, in fact the title was theirs to lose imo. Complacency maybe? Or the opposite of Wigan and have had too many weeks off, though their form leading in to the Leeds game suggests this isnt the case.

We have had a great season, 2nd in the league and Challenge Cup winners, if anyone on here isnt happy with that, get a reality check and go and support Wakefield or somebody, they would give anything for what we have had.