I know there is a lot of talk of 'what if the injured players would have played', but could you have physically played any better than you did? It was a very very good performance by your team (or the 'kids') and I don't think that Wigan could have done much more than they did.

Maybe a few more older heads would have not have lost it in the last 10mins, but even so you were very dominant throughout and it was Warrington's defence that kept you out for the majoriy of the second half. S Tomkins should really have strolled in half a dozen times, but they kept you out.

For example, would McIlorum have done better than L Tomkins or would Green done any better than Powell? I don't think they would have tbh.

Break it down all you want, but the mind boggles that any Wigan fan could not have been pleased by the effort his very under-strength team put in against the best side in the competition on Monday night.

Is praising effort an offence these days? Is having pride in courage something to be scoffed at?

And I'm sorry, but pretending that Warrington were as under-strength as Wigan is a ridiculous lie designed to try and make your original post look less foolish.

Cut them a bit of slack on this one! I’ve never been so pleased about a defeat before. What do they have to do for you, open a vein? Because if they had it would have bled water, Dougie water not blood.

I think our composure would have been helped with these players, especially O'Louglhlin, whose defence alone could have been the difference in those last 6 minutes.

The difference between mondays performance and a better performance is the ball sticking. Is was a game of such small margins but charnley keeping a hand on the ball when he was open, or for the interception at the end would have made all the difference. Other things like pat missing the ball for monaghans try would add up too. So basically as you say, im not sure the players could have done much more, but had everything been executed perfectly, i believe a more favourable score line would have resulted.

hurting?..grow up and grow some you imbecile oaf.

Do you think a lack of composure was the problem though? I think, overall, the composure of your team was not the problem. I think it was down to Warrington's defence, mainly.

If you would have played any other team in the league you would have won that game by, at least, a two try margin because I do not think that any other team would have defended as well as that. Warrington seem to be the only SL team that can handle Sam Tomkins.



Isn't that an obvious statement though?

Aha yes it is. Erm i guess what i mean is on another day, put in the same position the ball would have stuck. The other thing i would say is fitness would be improved with a first choice team as we would have had 4 props and would be able to bring logan tomkins off the bench for mcilorum, so they wouldnt have been so tired as they were at the end. But it was wanes choice to play just 16 men i guess.

Your proposition seems to be that Wigan could not have achieved much more even if they had a full complement of fit and experienced players to choose from. Fine then why are Saints in the state they are? When I last checked out the saints excuses it did appear to me that much of the blame was being put down to the amount of injuries they have had, especially in the more experienced players. Or does what you say only apply to Wigan?

Wow pretty paranoid! It was a compliment to your younger kids. I honestly do not think McIlorum would have played better than L Tomkins and I honestly do not think that Green would have done a better job than Powell did.

Saints are in the state we are because we have no depth. You have that in abundance. Stuart Howarth has not played as well as Roby and Makinson has not played as well as Lomax has done at FB.

Paranoid, thanks for the fag packet psychoanalysis, but saying what you have about Saints suffering from the absence and lack of experienced players sort of proves my original point I think.

We had a lot of dropped ball in key positions [The first few sets in the first half a clear example of that] So I do feel we lacked composure at key points in the match. I feel with our first choice pivots this may have swayed it into our favour.

It's doubtful that you are right about Green and Powell but you are plain wrong about McIlorum. Apart from the fact that we would have interchanged the hookers, a fully fit McIlorum is at the moment, better than Tomkins.

Not sure which direction this thread is wandering in, but I am certain that we would have won with a full team as I am that the sun will come up tomorrow. Composure, structure, physical presence, game know how, fitness, interchange options - everything would have been improved.
We are in the happy position that we can nurse our lads to fitness, drop a few points and still finish top if we are not at Wembley or 2nd if we are, plus then rest/spell players in advance of the play offs.
In the mean time we are learning a great deal about alternatives should disaster strike. We almost certainly won't have to go to Wire again in 2013, and we now have a deep pool of talent who know what is required to beat the best (other, arguably than us) side in the competition on their home patch.
If the last few weeks had been part of a masterplan - give the pivots a break, sort out injuries, expose youngsters to real pressure, while remaining 3 points clear - it would have been a work of genius.

Although I think Powell had a decent game, you would expect Green would have had more success in unlocking Wire's defence and putting on the plays.