: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:19 pm  

diesel wrote:

As you say friday proved that wigan can play more than 5 drives and a kick..I agree..but it's only one game..we need to do it a lot more often...time will tell..to be fair to others..how many games have wigan under noble played like this? (I suggest not many) if noble is as good as you think I assume we can expect more of the same.

This is what I struggle with.

Apart from the Wakefield game in which we were appalling, we have scored some really good tries against the other sides. We could and should have beat Hull.

There were no barge over tries against Cas or Quinns, and some of the build up play on Saturday was superb.

There are times when you have to play five drives and a kick, and on Saturday IMO we pushed the ball a little too much on a couple of occasions, but got away with it (maybe the ground being a little dryer helped)

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:22 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

This is what I struggle with.

Apart from the Wakefield game in which we were appalling, we have scored some really good tries against the other sides. We could and should have beat Hull.

There were no barge over tries against Cas or Quinns, and some of the build up play on Saturday was superb.

There are times when you have to play five drives and a kick, and on Saturday IMO we pushed the ball a little too much on a couple of occasions, but got away with it (maybe the ground being a little dryer helped)

I agree i personally thought at times we pushed the pass a little too much, but it was one of those days when all the passes stuck, helped by a poor Bradford display.

We saw some cracking tries last year as well usually when the game was gone or when we had to throw the standard negative game plan out of the window. Getting the balance right is crucial, if you are not chasing the game you have to win the field position and posession and lay the platform, not sure we did this at times on Saturday but it was great to watch and one of "those days" where everything went right and the passes went to hand.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:25 pm  

I wonder how much having Riddell shine & a natural 6 in the team helped the flow in terms of the quality of the attack.

Both those influences will undoubtably helped Nobby approach the game as we seemingly did.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:27 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

This is what I struggle with.

Apart from the Wakefield game in which we were appalling, we have scored some really good tries against the other sides. We could and should have beat Hull.

There were no barge over tries against Cas or Quinns, and some of the build up play on Saturday was superb.

There are times when you have to play five drives and a kick, and on Saturday IMO we pushed the ball a little too much on a couple of occasions, but got away with it (maybe the ground being a little dryer helped)

but it was good watching it for a change

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:38 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

Ainscough's current form makes the decision to keep him in the reserves for so long look nonsensical. He's now played three times for the first team, and has been very good on each occasion. This isn't just a case of beginner's luck.

However, it pains me to see Wigan fans arguing bitterly over this sort of thing.

As someone else said, it isn't really a black and white issue. I don't think Nobby's been as good for Wigan as I hoped he was going to be when we first announced him. But a coach with his record can not just be written off as 'crap'. It can't be that simple.

Personally, I don't think I've ever called for him to be sacked, but I've certainly expressed disatisfaction and concern with the way his team has been playing these last few years. One or two good wins are just not adequate for a club like ours. Likewise, Noble's been slow to promote youth. Not as slow as some would claim, but he's clearly not been eager to pitch the kids in. However, I don't really buy this 'he only did it because he had to' viewpoint. I'd argue that most youngsters only really get their chance when injuries open doors for them. If they then kick on and show what they can do, and are subsequently left out again, that's a big question-mark against the coach's wisdom. But so far Noble hasn't done that. Prescott, O'Carroll and Joel Tomkins have all come to the fore under Noble, and - regardless of whether or not he was 'forced' to pick them in the first place - he's kept faith with them since, rewarding their efforts with regular selection. I can't understand why some Noble doubters continue to ignore this piece of evidence, and think it's very odd and contrary of them.

One thing I reckon we'll all agree on is that we hope what we saw on Saturday night will now continue through the season. If Noble can get this team to play like that for a good few months, I'd happily hand him another contract myself. The days of posters on here seeing Wigan defeats as small victories for themselves over rival posters seem thankfully to be a thing of the past.

I certainly wouldn't want Wigan to lose to prove a point, far from it. If you'd seen me on Saturday I was loudly supporting the team and was as pleased as anybody that we won. I make no apologies for the fact that defeats like the Wakey one this year and Hudds last year leave me absolutely gutted. No true Wigan fan can watch performances like that and not be upset.

I do agree that to some extent BN has become a bit of a focal point for irritation over the failure of our youth policy in recent years, its certainly not fair to suggest that he is solely or even mainly to blame. I still remain mystified by his selections this season though (Mathers? Phelps?). I only saw the Leigh match pre-season but both of those two looked awful and Smith didn't look great either (and was truly shocking against Wakey).

I've said on other threads that BN is only part of the problem. Our failings to my mind lie more in a general malaise in terms of standards than any one individual and I'm not sure that the best coach in the world could properly turn things round at Wigan on his own.

We need to raise standards across the board. That includes much better recruitment and the fitness side in particular, which aren't the direct responsibility of BN. I've used the example of Riddell and Smith before - good players in theory (and Riddell is now starting to deliver) - but they don't look to have the required level of fitness. That simply would not have been allowed in the old days, e.g. Inga arrived with a massively bigger reputation than either of those players but was made to conform to the Wigan way. He was forced to lose weight and improve his fitness.

We just don't seem to do that any more, second (or even third) best seems to be OK.

To be fair to BN he can't sort that kind of thing out on his own, it needs IL and the board to set the agenda just as ML and the directors in the mid 80s had a vision of Wigan becoming great again and set out to make us the best in everything we did.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:51 pm  

Isn't there a middle ground to be had here? I am not a fan of "Noble rugby" i.e. 5 drives and a kick every time to go up the middle. But reviewing the games over the past few weeks and earlier on last season - our problem was that we could barely grasp the "5 drives and a kick" way of laying a platform - nevermind going on from that to then play expansive rugby and putting moves on near the line.

What none of us can say for sure is that Noble was forcing them to just stick with the 5 drives and a kick. And no one can say that he wasn't.

The end result, however, was a game like last night where correct platforms were set allowing for flowing and fast attacking rugby. Sam starting had a huge influence in our ability to create problems ball in hand - but who is to say he could have done that if the forwards such as Hock, Feka, Fielden (and Colely!) hadn't done their share Noble-style?

Were the first few performances the players fault for not managing to set decent platforms and look after the ball? No one can deny that the stats for the first three games were horrendous. Were the players just following Noble instructions and that's where it has all gone wrong?

I know this is a post of no real answer or view - but since this thread has become so polarised perhaps those championing Noble should hang back a bit, applaud the entire team and coach for the peformance and hope we build on it next week. The first few weeks were horrendous and cannot be forgotten so quickly and easily. Perhaps also the Noble bashers give some credit where it is perhaps due (I believe jonh has done so) but be allowed to remain cautious in how much of it is Noble's doing.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:54 pm  

AJ wrote:

I wonder how much having Riddell shine & a natural 6 in the team helped the flow in terms of the quality of the attack.

Both those influences will undoubtably helped Nobby approach the game as we seemingly did.

It helped massively IMO, the players seem to be running off Riddell/LuLu and Tomkins, something which they seemed incapable of doing in the Higham era.

Am I the only one who can't believe this argument regarding Noble is still raging on? The same old points are repeated over and over again!

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:00 pm  

Elle Coco wrote:

I know this is a post of no real answer or view

Get off the fence

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:00 pm  

Elle Coco wrote:

Isn't there a middle ground to be had here? I am not a fan of "Noble rugby" i.e. 5 drives and a kick every time to go up the middle. But reviewing the games over the past few weeks and earlier on last season - our problem was that we could barely grasp the "5 drives and a kick" way of laying a platform - nevermind going on from that to then play expansive rugby and putting moves on near the line.

What none of us can say for sure is that Noble was forcing them to just stick with the 5 drives and a kick. And no one can say that he wasn't.

The end result, however, was a game like last night where correct platforms were set allowing for flowing and fast attacking rugby. Sam starting had a huge influence in our ability to create problems ball in hand - but who is to say he could have done that if the forwards such as Hock, Feka, Fielden (and Colely!) hadn't done their share Noble-style?

Were the first few performances the players fault for not managing to set decent platforms and look after the ball? No one can deny that the stats for the first three games were horrendous. Were the players just following Noble instructions and that's where it has all gone wrong?

I know this is a post of no real answer or view - but since this thread has become so polarised perhaps those championing Noble should hang back a bit, applaud the entire team and coach for the peformance and hope we build on it next week. The first few weeks were horrendous and cannot be forgotten so quickly and easily. Perhaps also the Noble bashers give some credit where it is perhaps due (I believe jonh has done so) but be allowed to remain cautious in how much of it is Noble's doing.

Thats just far to sensible a post .

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:01 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

It helped massively IMO, the players seem to be running off Riddell/LuLu and Tomkins, something which they seemed incapable of doing in the Higham era.

Which all boils down to Higham's inability to distribute the ball in any way effectively.