Long term it’s something I’d consider but in the shorter term he needs to stay on the wing where he’s just started to get back to something like his best. He’s benefitting more then most from the competition for places as I feel he’s the type of lad that needs to be pushed and there’s improvement in him yet.

Ultimately he’s our best winger both in regards to natural talent and current form so I wouldn’t rock the boat. In saying that I also wouldn’t rule out a future at centre for him down the line because he has the size and the skills to maybe be a success in that position but the time isn’t right to try that currently imo.

I agree with this NK. An additional benefit, should he make the move successfully, would be at international level where the dearth of quality is arguably worse than at club level.

Of course we get that the positions have differences! I'd say more defensively than in attack. If you think he'd struggle at centre in attack you need only take a look at Friday. He attacked through the centre channels, beating the opposition centre with a man outside him (you know.. like a winger!) and on both occasions showed the awareness to set up his winger (sic) to score! This was against one of the top sides in the league generally noted for their tight defence. This is far from the first time he's shown such awareness in setting up others for tries. What part of the blindingly obvious are you struggling with there?

As for defense, I agree he hasn't shown the same natural propensity for the position but in mitigation we've only seen him at this level in an injury ravaged team with inexperience outside him. As has been said many times about bringing youngsters into the team, it's a completely different proposition when there is a full team of experienced players around you. The same argument is equally applicable to positional switches.

I am certainly not advocating a move now but, down the line, a simple look at our playing roster would suggest it's something worth looking at. You could argue that people's obsession with not considering positional changes, even when it would plainly benefit the club, is the unfathomable one.

It's worrying how you watched the game on Friday and from that came to the conclusion that Burgess could be a good centre. The highlights of his tries could be attributed to centre play, I get that, from his position and how he dealt with Webster was it? But a 10 second snapshot falls very short in comparison to his spell, game after game of watching him at centre. You mention how the skills of a centre in attack, these are a million miles away from that of a winger, how you're positioned, ball skills the lot.

And for defence, you mention he had an inexperienced winger outside him, that winger was Marshall, who do you think would be playing outside of him if you moved him into the centres? That same winger.

I'm not against positional play, but only if it makes sense. Trying to covert our best winger to a centre doesn't.

Wakefield complain about the size of Castleford pitch and what do they do bring in Wigan must really have some grudge against us.


Wigan Warriors play on a field that is not legal according to RL laws. They play on a ground measuring 105 metres which according to the RL law should be a maximum of 100 metres, with a 6 metre in goal area behind the posts.
The minimum requirements are 94 metres between posts, Castleford play on an legal pitch, and always cheating Wigan play on an illegal pitch. Will Eddie or his mates ever pick up on this.

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

To be fair, although legal, the Castleford pitch is laughably small.

I was thinking "No wonder Gale kicks loads of 40/20s". We kick way fewer, but the pitch we play on is huge in comparison to Castleford's.

Ive had this argument with the other half and as i constantly tell her, its not the length its the width that matters....





But she still argues that Castlefords pitch is longer

I was a on the Castleford forum and one of there Castleford supporters was on the Wakefield forum and on there they were complaining how short there pitch was, so he fetched Wigan in to the argument which I think was unfair back onto the Cas forum.

Well it isn't based on a 10 second snapshot as I've said previously and the winger outside him (if he played on the left) would be a Marshall in his third season as a Superleague regular, not the inexperienced one in his first few games as he was when he played outside Budgie last season. Other than that, you're bang on!

Let's agree to differ on thus one. Time will tell who was right.

i think that is the dimensions for the football pitch for latics. look at the markings on friday.the goal lines for the football and rugby dont match

The rugby posts are up in the picture, I measured post to post.

seems strange then.the rugby markings seem a consistant 10m,so where does the extra come from.a dodgy tape measure?

Wigan is the right size pitch and the football and rugby markings correspond. The try line at Wigan is the goalline for the football. Now look at other 'new' stadiums and this is not the case, ie Hull, Huddersfield & St Helens have the try line within the football pitch.