Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:30 am  

So now as it stands-
3 games
lost 2 -1 quite easily ,1 very very close- 4points
Won 1- very very close-on our way to Challenge cup Win.
Great results compared to last year.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:32 am  

jonh wrote:

I think on balance of play Saints deserved it.

I thought it was a fantastic game that had it all and ultimately we gave Saints too many chances and they took them. They are a quality side and still the benchmark for SL clubs.

Having said that I do think the advances we have made in the last year on them are huge and show no signs of slowing down.

I’m confident next year we will overtake them and whilst they are favourites for the title this year it’s not too much of a stretch for us to be finishing this year off as champions.

Lots to look forward to both this year and next.

I agree,no reason to think we cannot do the double now,next year should be even more interesting with Cooper etc.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:48 am  

Jason65 wrote:

I agree,no reason to think we cannot do the double now,next year should be even more interesting with Cooper etc.

You’re presuming that we won’t get better though. How do you know we won’t sign someone to replace Grace? Dodd will be back, Welsby a year older etc. No planned departures other than Grace. Lomax will be fully recovered too.

Before Dodd got injured we were unbelievable, both in attack and defence.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:48 am  

Re my accused hyperbole on gaining ground: just looked at the stats - looks like saints had only two players across the 17 with less that 7m average gain (Norman and Wingfield, both 6m).

For Wigan, 10 of the 17 players had under 7m average gain. In the forwards there was Byrne (5), Smithies (6), Mago (6), Powell (3), Singleton (3). Plus Cust, Isa, Field, Bibby, Smith.

The narrative is usually that saints pack is ordinary without Walmsley but they were excellent yesterday and needed to be.

Wigan did very well to come as close as they did - defence was absolutely brilliant and they have genuine strike players who can create points off the back foot.

Field did absolutely nothing but get clattered but then nearly won the game for you with a moment of magic.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:08 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Re my accused hyperbole on gaining ground: just looked at the stats - looks like saints had only two players across the 17 with less that 7m average gain (Norman and Wingfield, both 6m).

For Wigan, 10 of the 17 players had under 7m average gain. In the forwards there was Byrne (5), Smithies (6), Mago (6), Powell (3), Singleton (3). Plus Cust, Isa, Field, Bibby, Smith.

The narrative is usually that saints pack is ordinary without Walmsley but they were excellent yesterday and needed to be.

Wigan did very well to come as close as they did - defence was absolutely brilliant and they have genuine strike players who can create points off the back foot.

Field did absolutely nothing but get clattered but then nearly won the game for you with a moment of magic.

It's missing the point and that's what I'm trying to say. It's like me pointing out how bad your kicking was and ignoring the reason for it.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:24 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Re my accused hyperbole on gaining ground: just looked at the stats - looks like saints had only two players across the 17 with less that 7m average gain (Norman and Wingfield, both 6m).

For Wigan, 10 of the 17 players had under 7m average gain. In the forwards there was Byrne (5), Smithies (6), Mago (6), Powell (3), Singleton (3). Plus Cust, Isa, Field, Bibby, Smith.

The narrative is usually that saints pack is ordinary without Walmsley but they were excellent yesterday and needed to be.

Wigan did very well to come as close as they did - defence was absolutely brilliant and they have genuine strike players who can create points off the back foot.

Field did absolutely nothing but get clattered but then nearly won the game for you with a moment of magic.

Aside from create our other two tries?

But yes - the main problem Wigan have against Saints remains the same. They make a lot of post contact metres - we don't. For me getting players in the team who may help with that should be the priority even if they have other limitations - the likes of Miski, Thornley, KPP.

I have mixed feelings on our two prop forward signings - Ellis has been pretty solid but certainly doesn't look one of the competition's top front rowers whereas Mago is unfit and relies purely on an offload to make an impact when I was hoping he would eat up the metres.

Having an ineffective Shorrocks and a practically unused Partington didn't help matters.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:26 am  

sergeant pepper wrote:

It's missing the point and that's what I'm trying to say. It's like me pointing out how bad your kicking was and ignoring the reason for it.

How is it missing the point? You keep saying talking about missing players is BS but then say saints pack is on top because you’re missing Thornley (seriously?!?), Ellis and KPP. It’s common knowledge that makinson and Percival are a massive part of our go forward that Walmsley then benefits from. None of them were there but the pack was still comfortably on top, but the reason was the players you had out?

Odd.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:31 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

Re my accused hyperbole on gaining ground: just looked at the stats - looks like saints had only two players across the 17 with less that 7m average gain (Norman and Wingfield, both 6m).

For Wigan, 10 of the 17 players had under 7m average gain. In the forwards there was Byrne (5), Smithies (6), Mago (6), Powell (3), Singleton (3). Plus Cust, Isa, Field, Bibby, Smith.

The narrative is usually that saints pack is ordinary without Walmsley but they were excellent yesterday and needed to be.

Wigan did very well to come as close as they did - defence was absolutely brilliant and they have genuine strike players who can create points off the back foot.

Field did absolutely nothing but get clattered but then nearly won the game for you with a moment of magic.

Those stats for wigans pack are par for the course. Their forwards always have woeful stats because their pack is so poor. They just rely on Field making something out of nothing and that’s their game plan. Bateman again was absolutely anonymous save for getting smashed by Matautia. It’s these games you want your leaders stepping up but Bateman was just too intimidated by Joe Bathchelor and Matty Lees to do anything of note.

If Wigan had a better pack, I think they would have won that game yesterday easily. I’m not sure Cooper Is the answer though

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:32 am  

I thought Field was excellent. A constant threat, had Saints back peddling when he had the ball, 2 unbelievable assists and a good hand in the Bateman try.

If ever there was a game to dispel the Saints fans ‘he’s just quick’ line, that was it but we still get the ‘he did nothing’ line’. Standard stuff.

Re: Saints (m) : Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:35 am  

TheWarringtonWolve69 wrote:

Those stats for wigans pack are par for the course. Their forwards always have woeful stats because their pack is so poor. They just rely on Field making something out of nothing and that’s their game plan. Bateman again was absolutely anonymous save for getting smashed by Matautia. It’s these games you want your leaders stepping up but Bateman was just too intimidated by Joe Bathchelor and Matty Lees to do anything of note.

If Wigan had a better pack, I think they would have won that game yesterday easily. I’m not sure Cooper Is the answer though

Standard stuff again.

Bateman

39 tackles
154 metres
1 try
Top metre making forward on the field from either side

Batchelor absolutely outstanding as well. Man of the match for me.