I agree, I was very for moving Sam to FB when he was a 6. I remember suggesting it years ago and was laughed at. But now I feel moving Sam to 6 is a great option.

What people don't seem to get is that there is more than one way of structuring the attack. I must have discussed this a million times on here and I don't know if posters recognise the different structures. To simplify look at the two main structures, Storm play split halves with Cronk on one side. Widdop on the other. With Slater linking up. This is how we play, with Sam in the Slater role.

The second structure is what QLD/Aus use. a deep lying 6 who plays second receiver off a controlling 7. Hence why Thruston has moved from 7 to 6 to play the deep lying role. THIS for me is the way forward considering our players.
Let Smith control the team from 7, get the forwards running on, being the leader around the ruck. Let Sam play off Smith. From a wider position he can do what Thurston does which is constantly communicate what he sees to Smith, from here Sam gets the ball when he calls for it on either left or right side of the attack. Sam can link up wherever he likes. Thurston for example will appear anywhere on the pitch, targeting where he spots weakness.

So what about the FB role in this structure? Can link up just the same, as Slater does playing for QLD and Aus. Usually what the FB does is communicated by the 6 who stands deeper off the line.

In the current structure the 6/7 are interchangeable, they play mirrored positions, they only link up when passing the ball from one side to the other, they don't create as a pair. I feel due to this our attack becomes predictable. Sam will be targeted next season as people can see him linking in the attack as the danger man.

So I agree, let him play 6 as Benji does, as Thurston does, as Lockyer did.
So much more can be constructed in attack I even would integrated the 13 as another ball player 'golden triangle' as it was know when Hanley, Greg and Edwards played. have the 13 line up on the opposite side to the 6 as another receiver, or have him inside of the deep lying 6 on the same side to create numbers, out number the opposition.

We all are great fans of Wigan RL, but some of us are actually also are great fans of the game, structures and tactics.

To play such a formation I would have a team of:

Charnley (with a pre season at FB he would be fantastic. Needs to get his hands more on the ball, dangerous runner and safe as houses under the high ball.
Gelling Goulding/Hughes Thornley Richards (Massive backline, each with pace and power).
Tomkins (deep lying 6) Smith (controlling 7)
Dudson/Mossop McM Eric/Flower
Hock Hansen
Lockers

My targets for signings would be an experienced enforcer prop and an experience 9 who offers a different style of play to McM.

For England I'd definitely play Tomkins at 6 or 7. I think his front line defence is as good as most other halfbacks, and when England have the ball it makes no difference at all what number he wears on his back. What England cannot afford is for his confidence to be battered by being bombarded by high balls, one or more of which sooner or later (just like any full back) he'll drop. Let someone more robust like Hardaker take that flak.

Back on topic, I think critics of Wane are being a bit harsh - he may have got the season slightly wrong but the mere fact you can argue that you could and should have got to Wembley and the GF with just a bit of luck (Tomkins' injury) or slightly different selections tells you he wasn't a mile off. I also wouldn't forget that a fair few people rated Wigan's attack this year to be amongst the best there's been in SL - I for one certainly appreciated the style you played at times, if not the dreadful defences against it.

That's a mile off how McDermott's season would have panned out last year if Leeds had lost both the semis they won. He simply wouldn't have been the coach this year. Unlike Wane, he had zero credit for the regular season to bank against even narrow losses in 'must win' games.

Exactly. Yes we were poor in the CCSF, but if the big decisions had gone our way then we'd have been heading back to Wembley. In the Playoffs it wasn't the inclusion of Murphy or a poor attacking structure that cost us the game, it was playing dumb rugby when 12-11 up and trying to force a try that we didn't need to score.

This is hypothetical, as in 'what would I do'. In this case I would't have spent the money on Green. I would have felt confident with Smith and Tomkins as starters in the halves with Powell as back up. With this we have other young talent coming through in the halves.

'If' in some fantasy world I was in charge from now I think I'd use Green from the bench. Possibly primary as the interchange 9, which I'm sure he could play, as a back up 6 or 7. I think it's often useful to have a versatile player on the bench incase of injures.

Spot on.

I think Green will be a good player BUT Tomkins could have been a world class one!

A perfect opportunity and money have been wasted here and I think the team will suffer for it.

It's obvious what will happen next year, split halves with Sam linking up in the line. With Smith and Green splitting the pitch. Basically more of the same.

Who plays FB in this scenario though, Murphy? The coaching staff have obviously decided that the team is better off with a completely new HB partnership coming in and keeping Sam at FB, and personally I agree with this. I do also agree with your point that Sam could also be a top class 6, and I think if he stays in RL he'll end up there in a few years time, but for now he needs to stay at 1.

Shaun is vulnerable I feel and it won't be down to how we go in the regular season so much as the C Cup and the GF play offs.
Prior to his appointment IL said Noble not having another contract was due to us not reaching finals. Noble had his limitations but he did take us from being a relegation club to a semi finals. The last piece missing was why he went.
When Shaun was appointed IL said he expected Wigan RL to be winning trophies or at the very least getting to finals. Shaun agreed with all of that and said he expected it of himself as Wigan coach.
So this year we are top of the league but once again a semi finals team.
Dodgy refs decisions were a massive factor in both semis but it doesn't get away from the fact the first 40 mins in both we were abysmal. If we'd have been playing Wire in those semis instead of Leeds we'd have been buried by half time.
How not getting to finals once again will hold with IL remains to be seen.
I hope Shaun is successful as I do like him and I think he's a great deal to offer Wigan RL. IL in bringing in Maguire who in turn brought trophies back to Wigan has raised standards and expectations. Shaun has to fulfil those or he will be vulnerable.

I've stated who I think should play fb.

Correct , in Wigans favour last Friday night .

We were abysmal last week because we weren't allowed to be anything else. Not many sides would have looked good under the pressure that Leeds put us under both from their superb kicking game and line speed. Prior to the Watkins breakaway try we were well on top, but once they got ahead Sinfield murdered us with the boot.

Second half we put them under pressure with good line speed as opposed to waiting for them and it paid off with a few errors but we failed to capitalise.

yes the failure to sin bin the leeds player let alone penalise him in the dying seconds of the game was clearly in Wigans favour. And before you start banging on about the non-knockon that lead to our second try and then rewind a play when the players head was taken off and missed by Silverwood. When it matters.. when it REALLY matters Leeds get the rub. They did the Week before v Catalan and IIRC they won against Wire with a late penalty in last seasons semi. All teams get favourable calls but when a season depends on a call the refs are very keen to please the rhinos

We should have been better. Their game plan worked perfectly. Wane played into their hands putting a young inexperienced FB against Sinfield.

Quality!