You will look better as a team with Coote and Abdull, obviously i agree with that. Any team players of that calibre missing will look better with them playing. So would we with all the players we have missing.

I do disagree with your opinion of us playing better with just French though, i think having just one of the two on the field at any one time paints a larger taget on that players back, and when we have played a team in recent weeks that has aimed for that target and nullified the threat of French we have struggled. Having both (in attacking roles, not hiding French away on the wing where he was rarely seeing the ball) gives us many more options and when one is getting pinned down the other will typically get more freedom. I believe the Leigh game was a window into what we could see with both fit.

I think you are putting too much into your win against us. I admit you were the better team by far on that day and fully deserved the win, but it needs more context than that. It was literally the first game of the season, where teams are still not match fit and are still trying and feeling out new combo's / tactics / structures so the games are often more of a toss up. Not to mention we had quite a rocky start to the season. But you got the 2 points and that is all that matters at the end of the day.

If i am honest, you were probably the better team overall last night also, but that doesn't put points on the league table.

Not sure how it ‘doesn’t work at times’ when Field and French both play. It was some highlights reel last season. This season they played 60 mins of one game at 1 and 6 and it looked mouthwatering in all honesty and we’ll see how it goes. The bleating some fans do about missing players is staggering. Wigan have a good few out (not bothered counting) but we just crack on with things.

As a different debate - it seemed to me last night that Peat made a couple of tactical switches - Farrell looked to be running out wider than recently, even without the ball his lead runs were aimed more towards the sideline that back into the centre. Also in the second half Shorrocks was going more into second receiver (stand-off) than Hampshire who was pushed out wider - this seemed to happen more as the game went on - I wonder if this ws a deliberate switch as Hapmshire is more of a runner and being out wider might give him a bit more space.

I'm glad you no longer coach with a mentality like that, what are the other kids going to learn or even improve on if that is your overall plan, at junior level it is about developing players and not a win at all costs

I actually had no problems with the first Hall try, he had the ball gripped in his hand, as he was going over the side lines he put the ball down with his hand gripped on the side of the ball, there didnt appear to be any kind of bobble or bounce that I could see, the second one he clearly dropped it as you could see from the angle from the opposite side of the field, he had to use his other hand to put the ball down, plus shaking your head when putting it down just says all that needs to be said

Farrell pass for Miski’s try in the last minute was sublime.

Last three seconds you mean, hooter went as Miski put the ball down.

Potentially up there with 'Renouf to Radlinski' but without the winning kick.

you had 6 players out and we had 5 out, we had a winger at fullback and a hooker at scrum half so not quite not far off full strength.

the big difference was out and out speed last night, you've got it in French and Marshall (Field too) and we don't, i think we gave French too much respect last night, our centres just didn't look comfortable at all when he popped up around the back and kept rushing in to try and sort him out leaving two on ones. still 3rd in the league and much improved on the last few seasons so its not the end of the world, as disappointing as a golden point loss is.

oh and i reckon Smithies will get a game or two ban for his cheap shot on Parcell.

Agreed. That was stupid and served no purpose whatsoever. Plus, it was out of synch with the rest of the game, most of which was played in a good spirit.

I have no issue with Hull KR being a top side and I look forward to many more tussles with them. They are a hugely improved operation, have good players and a quality coach in Willie Peters.

My objection is with the way the Sky pundits presented it as if the Wigan win was somehow unfair, as if HKR had won some kind of moral victory. For me, that was pure defensiveness in light of the way they'd talked Rovers up during the game. The overegging the Ryan Hall 'try' was a classic example of this. At best, that score was highly questionable, yet the praise they heaped on the scorer was ludicrously OTT.

As I said before, they did the same thing when it was Leigh v Wigan. We barely got a mention, until it became obvious that Leigh were facing a massacre.

Something seriously wrong with that commentary team. It isn't just amateurishness.

Sky seems to go into a game with a pre-determined narrative and will stick with it regardless of what goes on on the pitch.

We've seen for example, Leeds get out played in many games yet they find a way to win right at the death and the story is very different to Wigan, where we seem criticised for not doing better.

The narrative last night was how great HKR are doing and they deserved to win.

That's true, but it's just confirmation bias, isn't it? You see it in all sports and with all commentators. They start the game with a script already written in their heads, and look for evidence to support it. Even the likes of Cooper Cronk, who has forgotten more about rugby league than most of us know, is not immune.

Smithies no further action "used forearm to keep opponent down" "didn't drop" or words to that effect

There was nothing in that - just a silly second push on the floor.

Ethan Ryan broke his jaw in that game,
Wigan have sent him a get well card and a hamper of sorts.
Well done Wigan!