Just on the super league site and notice who the top two are for assists. Just wondering would these two have done a better job for us this season than the 6 and 7 we currently have? www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... 09&hp2=580

Just on the super league site and notice who the top two are for assists. Just wondering would these two have done a better job for us this season than the 6 and 7 we currently have? www.superleague.co.uk/statistics ... 09&hp2=580

As a combo yes, but I think Lulu trumps Orr, and we were never going to be able to keep Dobson

Dobson is class and such a shame our salary cap was fooked when we had him here. Orr never did much at the JJB for me.

Interesting to note that Warrington fans and some sections of our supporters are very critical of Martin Gleeson and yet he has more try assists to his name than any of our players.

You are all looking at Dobson for his attacking play.

Look at his errors and missed tackles, he's as bad if not worse than Smith.

It was the main reason why I didn't want him back at Wigan.

Even so, his game is far superior than Smith. Currently you cannot compare the players.

Dobson is a great scrum half, a creative one at that.

He can also lead a team round the field, taking the right options in different areas of the pitch - something we are severely lacking right now.

I dsagree.

He couldn't hold his place down in Australia, he's IMO nothing more than an average scrum half, who is poor defensively and is no better than Smith except that he is a good goalkicker.

Maybe a lot of people miss these statistics because his kicking game is that good that the mistakes occur at the 'right' end of the field.

There is no question in my mind that Dobson offers a significant territorial advantage to any team in which he features.

But it's ridiculous continually discussing him, he's contracted at Hull.

For what reason is it ridiculous? I simply asked if he would have done a better job than our current 7. No one mentioned signing him.

The only reason some people are critical of Gleeson is his age, the rumour he will be offered a long term deal and the fact we would be shipping out a young player many people don't feel is having a fair crack of the whip under Noble.

If we could sign Gleeson on a 2 year deal and keep Goulding I would not have a problem with it.

As it stands it sounds like the same sort of panic measure rumoured when we were after Moore from Wakefield in that we were supposed to be offering players in exchange.

We were also rumoured to be trying to offload players to sign Bird. Last season we undermined Higham's position with the Newton enquiry.

I just don't think doing this is the right way to go about strengthening the squad. The squad are all contracted to Wigan for the duration of their deals and when they come off contract then the club can decide how it wants to strengthen the squad. 2010 has been mentioned as a watershed year in terms of contracts so in the meantime Nobby just needs to start getting the best out of what he has got instead of treating them like a bunch of cattle to auctioned off when something better comes along.

IMO the names of players offered in such attempted exchange deals always come out into the open. Seemingly this is the first they ever hear of it and this IMO just undermines the players who aren't exactly brimming with confidence as it is.

Why IL and BN think a club would want to take the likes of Mathers in a deal just so we can free up the necessary salary cap to get Gleeson on board I have no idea. It is IMO unrealistic to expect clubs to take what IL and BN clearly consider inferior players so we can take one of theirs to strengthen our squad!

So given our lack of space under the salary cap means we need to offload players and the fact each time we have tried to offload players it has failed, wouldn't you think it was about time both IL and BN realised this is not going to work? When it does fail all we end up with is one or more players who know they are not rated by the current coach (and possibly chairman as well).

This does not seem a very sensible way to go about things.

Dave

That's 3 reasons.

Dave

It's a top quality prop forward we want, IMO.

It doesn't matter if it's Lockyer, Thurston, Gleeson or Mathers they aren't able to play to their full potential behind a pack lacking leadership.

its evident we're missing a prop, we've got no agression up front apart from feka.

we had no go forward on friday which consequently meant we could not give the ball air- we were going lateral instead of straight forward.

Aye. Too much east & west and not enough north & south.