EagleEyePie

We currently have Jake Bibby at centre. King can't be any worse at passing to his winger. While it does seem like we're swapping one player who can't pass and can't defend for another, I think King does have the potential to be better and is more of a natural athlete, and he averages nearly 40m per game more so it actually seems like King puts a bit of work in.

There seems to be quite a few clubs on the hunt for new centres for 2023 with lots of movement. King is one of those who could be a good player but his form this season with Wire has been pretty horrendous from what I've seen, particularly his defending. Is it a surprise that it's just a loan? Not really. I doubt Wigan would be willing to buy out his contract given his form, but Wire would probably be wanting to free up the space on the cap to rebuild the squad. Low risk move for Wigan but with Bibby expected to leave and Thornley missing pretty much the entire year through injury we've only got Sam Halsall (the Wigan academy product someone was asking about above) as a recognised centre. I think Sutton and O'Keefe in the academy aren't at the right level yet. Centre is definitely an area of weakness for Wigan as we can't keep playing Isa and Pearce-Paul there (and Farrell at times, who is still our best performing centre of the last couple of years). Will we get more out of Toby King? I guess it depends. He looked like a future superstar when he was in the Huddersfield academy before Wire poached him. A few years ago he looked to be heading in the right direction but he should have been an England international now with the talent he has. Hopefully a move to Wigan can be the moment he kicks on, but there's always the risk that he's just one of those players who looks outstanding as a youngster but never really hits the heights they were capable of. I'm glad Wigan haven't committed long term, as I think it's too much of a risk, but it's also a risk worth taking as we need to improve our centres.

It was a pretty routine win for Wigan without ever really getting out of 2nd gear. I'm a big fan of having Toulouse in Super League and wish there was a way to give them time to grow in the competition but you also can't hide from the fact that they knew what they were up against at the start of the year but seemingly haven't really bothered to strengthen their squad sufficiently. I know the losses of Kheirallah and Ford were a blow but it's debatable whether they'd be Super League quality anyway. It's great that they've caught a few teams out at home and managed to beat the champions, but they've gone the entire year with a championship standard team as if they expected to be given an exemption from relegation. It's a bit of a wasted opportunity because it's not like they'd struggle to attract players. Toulouse going down will be disappointing because there's something to build on in France but they've barely tried to play the game that every other club has to when they've come up. The Leigh chairman may be a fruit loop but at least there might be some ambition coming to Super League next season.

I think you do Wakefield a disservice. They are second bottom but they do have a decent team. It would be condescending to think that whatever the team we put out we should be winning. Wakefield's performances against Catalans and in particular St Helens show that they are capable of troubling strong sides. And the point I was making wasn't that we'd have necessarily won if the 5 players I mentioned had been available, but that in those conditions the players you want available are your fittest and hardest workers and best defenders. Take those out of the side and we can't really be surprised that teams can topple Wigan. We're good but still a long way from Saints and also very beatable away from home even when fielding stronger teams. Wakefield dominated the game down the middle and controlled the game through Miller and Lino who were excellent. They deserved the win and they are capable of being higher up the table than they are. One of a few teams who just struggled a bit with injuries throughout the year. From a Wigan perspective though I just don't think it's that surprising with the players we had missing. We've got some adequate back up but we are not at the level yet where we can just beat anyone regardless of who we have missing. The goal is to get to that point but we're not there yet.

This game was fairly standard stuff for Wigan away from home. Toulouse, Catalans, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Leeds and now Wakefield. All very poor performances that highlight a frailty in defence and where our attempts to play the attacking rugby that seems to work so well at home just fall flat. It shows that we still have some way to go to reach the level that Saints are at. Fortunately our home form has been so strong that we should be able to secure 2nd place and home games in the playoffs. Hard to argue we don't deserve it or that we've somehow been fortunate. Even with some of our shocking away performances we still have the 2nd best away record in Super League (although I reckon we'll be 3rd or 4th best by the end of the year). It didn't help that 5 of our fittest and hardest working players were all missing in a game where we really needed a bit of stamina and endurance to cope with the Wakefield pressure in the heat. Farrell, Bateman, Smithies and Havard make up 4 of our 5 top metre making forwards (and Ellis is the 5th and he's not 100% fit so only came on 2nd half and played reduced minutes). Add Powell to that list in defence and you've got our 5 hardest working defensive players. We ended up playing a large part of the game with a back row of Shorrocks, Isa and Partington who between them made 76 metres combined. That's what Smithies averages by himself in a game and less than Bateman (95 metres per game) and Farrell (111 metres per game). Did we still have enough quality to win? Of course. But that performance wasn't a huge surprise given how well Wakefield played and controlled the game once they took the lead. You need the forwards who go above and beyond to get back into a game like that and we didn't have them available.

It was a really disappointing night from a Wigan point of view, but fortunately not so out of the blue that it would seriously knock my confidence. The truth is we've played in a similar manner a few times this season. I think the difference tonight is that Leeds were really enthusiastic and played well for the whole 80 minutes. It was a similar performance to the Catalans and Toulouse away games, where the defence is just so passive and lacking enthusiasm and when it comes to attacking nothing seemed to be going right. The Toulouse away performance was obviously masked by the late comeback where everything just happened to go right for us and wrong for them. Right from the start things just seemed off. Cust couldn't even get his passes to go anywhere near the right man and every pass just seemed to be too far in front or behind the man so there was no rhythm. A bad day at the office of which we've had a few this year. What we need to do is respond. We had two defeats in May where we conceded 63 points over both games, so not the end of the world, just a wake up call that we've still got a lot to focus on to reach the level of Saints. Fair play to Leeds though, they were very good throughout and could easily have put plenty more points on us. As for the controversial Newman try, ref just made a mistake but it really shows the ridiculousness of the procedure that the video ref looks at that and says he's going with the on field call. When diving through the legs Newman knocks Handley into Marshall and prevents him from making a tackle. It should have been a Leeds penalty for Farrell being offside. Fortunately it's not important in the grand scheme of things but it's one of those interesting decisions that crop up

I've read plenty of thoughts from Wigan fans (and some non-Wigan fans) that it's a harsh ban for Singleton but to be honest I have no complaints. Once I saw the replay I was fairly certain it was going to be a red card and a 2 or 3 match ban. Gone are the days when you can throw yourself into a tackle without care and then claim an accident when a player alters their position. Players have to take into consideration the likelihood that a player might slip and adjust their technique accordingly. If you're aiming around the chest area and trying to get maximum force with the shoulder without wrapping the arm then you should know by now that any movement from the player could result in direct contact to the head and that's going to get a ban.

The only way to stop players feigning injury and staying down long enough that the video ref is forced to see a replay is to go back to the way it used to be and stop the video ref from having any input. That's the only thing that will stop it. The protocols don't really give the ref much leeway. If a player stays down he has to stop play and then if he gets the instruction from the video ref he can't really ignore it. He also can't second guess what is or isn't a feigned injury. I've seen countless seemingly minor knocks to the head result in players failing concussion assessments and also some players return from nasty collisions. From the perspective of a fan it's frustrating. You want the sport to always be tough and you don't want to see the game end up like football where play acting is part of the game. On the other hand if I was a player the only thing that matters is winning the game and doing what's best for the team. If you're 2 points down and someone commits what you know is foul play you're potentially ruining your teams chances by getting up and brushing it off. The team comes first. It doesn't really matter what the rule is, if it exists then players will always look for ways to exploit it. Stripping the ball when you're confident officials are unsighted, trapping defenders to win penalties, it's all an extension of the same thing - that players will do whatever they can get away with in order to win and to get the decisions. Refs need to stick with their decisions and not be influenced by players staying down. In terms of video refs, the game has to weigh up what's more important - them having an input to rectify instances of foul play that may have been missed, or reducing instances of players staying down in the hope of winning penalties.

I thought that was a fantastic game. The send off was massively frustrating (the correct decision though) but at least it made the defeat easier to take. I really didn't expect us to get anything out of it after going down to 12 men but that Bevan French try got the hopes up. Unfortunately we don't quite have the defensive strength to keep out a Saints team with a man advantage. Great effort though. In the first half we really struggled to make ground and it once again showed the Saints front row is stronger than Wigan's. It's a work in progress to keep improving in that area but Singleton today showed why Cooper is a sensible signing. Our senior prop isn't a pack leader, he's a liability and not much better than our young forwards. I was also a bit puzzled that Pearce-Paul didn't play. Had a strong game against Trinity yet he goes with Isa (who admittedly has played well at centre in the last couple of years) and Bibby, who I just don't get what is seen in him. Still, to be competing with Saints in these games is exactly where we need to be. There's still improvement needed but hopefully we can be at our best with our strongest squad at the end of the year.

For all the talk of Saints missing players that's still a very strong team they've named. The outside backs are strong with Bennison the only youngster and to be honest he looks like a very handy player already. Welsby and Lomax as good as any halfback combination and even with Walmsley missing out a front row of Paasi, Roby and Lees is one of the strongest in the competition and stronger than Wigan's front row. Sironen, Batchelor and Knowles is a pretty good back row too. Wigan probably have the edge on the bench and hopefully if it's a tight game that's what could edge it for us. Wigan have had a very good run since the cup final but we've played beatable teams so I'm not sure you can read too much into it. The key will probably be whether Saints can dominate in the forwards (which they are more than capable of) and whether they can defend at their best and limit our scoring chances. Do that and our defence will probably leak enough points for Saints to get a win. The tide hasn't turned just yet. Saints will probably win if they are at their best but I think Wigan have done well this year to close the gap and I expect another close game.

I agree. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having it on the mural. The mural itself doesn't say anything about it showing the greatest moments or that every moment is being celebrated. Every image on it is referenced around the edges and the Flower incident is in the section of 'Injuries, Tackles, Foul Play & Confrontation'. It's not 'celebrating' it just like it's not celebrating the fact Sam Tomkins got injured by depicting him on crutches. There are other depictions of players with serious injuries presented in a comedic way on there and some scraps too. I mean it also shows Phil Bentham lying on the floor with a broken leg. Whether presenting those incidents in such is a comical and flippant way is appropriate I'm not so sure. They couldn't really change the style just for certain images but they could have just gone for a slightly different depiction. Maybe the argument will be that they are going for the iconic images and the moment of Flower's punch is unfortunately the iconic image. Everyone will have their opinions. I'm not sure it's worth getting particularly upset over that depiction, I'm more disappointed that it includes Anthony Gelling.

It was a pretty uninspiring performance but at least England got the victory. Aside from Bateman and Welsby no one really excelled for England. It was competent, rather than good. The only player to play badly was McShane, but fortunately Leeming was impressive for CNAS so it's not really an issue. All it really showed is England's strength in depth is poor and the best we could come up with was a 2 score victory over what is possibly the 3rd strongest squad the CNAS could have fielded. If it was actually the best available overseas players involved I think England would have been beaten again. The NRL based players will ensure we're competitive in the World Cup but it really doesn't look like a generation of players that could really win a tournament.

I've been informed by my Saints supporting friends that Field is just a sprinter, so he doesn't really count as an exciting player. The problem is it's always going to be a victim of the poor state of international RL. You can't expect players to get onboard if there's nothing to get onboard with. Not only does the CNAS need some sort of identity and character, it also needs to come up with a convincing reason for players to be involved. I'm not sure Aussies and Kiwis are particularly bothered about helping England get a competitive game. I don't think we should just get rid of it though. Pretty much every concept gets ditched or changed and judged a failure but it just means there's little continuity or history built in the international game.

The concept in theory isn't too bad, but it suffers in the way that all games involving international teams do in the northern hemisphere. International RL isn't treated as seriously as it should be and every initiative suffers as a result. It would help if we had international games on a more regular basis throughout the year. When we just have one mid season fixture it just feels like a one-off. Selection doesn't hinge on who performs well because one good performance mid season isn't enough to really push for inclusion at the end of the year. When you then play your one international against a team cobbled together from overseas players and those not selected by England it makes it feel even more like an afterthought than anything to be taken seriously. The Combined Nations isn't a bad concept in the same way that the Barbarians in RU isn't a bad concept. The difference is there's history behind it, there's a concept to it. There's a style of rugby associated with the Barbarians. There's some prestige to being selected. We can't really add history and prestige to the CNAS concept if it's ditched after a few years. I think it should continue and the emphasis should be on selecting flair players and showcasing attacking rugby. Add some stipulations that can then become traditions, such as including one player from the Championship or below in the team (a bit like the Barbarians tradition of including one uncapped player). I genuinely think there's a place for the concept but the problem is it's place should not be the only mid season international fixture. The CNAS game is a bit of farce because international RL is a bit of a farce. It's only by playing more meaningful internationals against various teams that the sport will grow at this level and if that happens then the CNAS might become a more valuable concept such as an annual charity game with a bit more interest. But in the absence of that I don't blame players for pulling out or not being interested.

Smithies is still suspended

That's a pretty weak looking England side. Even some of the bigger names in the team are in nowhere near the good form they were in last season and quite a few are long past their best at international level. Then of course there are those who are in no form at all. I mean it might not matter too much in terms of the result because the All Stars team will be lucky if it includes more than one player who could realistically be described as a 'star'.

I thought it was an entertaining final that Huddersfield were very unlucky to lose. There's no doubt they looked the stronger side for most of that game and it must be frustrating that Lolohoea didn't have his kicking boots on. That said, I don't think it's as simple as 'kick the goals and they win' as Wigan have shown countless times already this year that we're very good at doing just enough to win over the 80 minutes. Had those goal kicks gone over I think Wigan would still have found a way to be within striking distance by the end of the game. Morgan Smithies is a very lucky boy. Under the early season directives the first challenge was a sin bin and the second a red card. Personally I thought the 2nd one probably still should have been a red, but it's a case of be careful what you wish for for coaches and players in the game. They were up in arms about the number of cards being given and how it was spoiling games, even after incidents that were hard to argue with. The result is challenges like Bentley's last week and Smithies this week not getting the punishments they deserve during the games. However, aside from those moments I thought he had an outstanding game. His work rate was fantastic and the offload for Smith's try was superb. I think he's flown under the radar a bit this year. A lot of people seem to view him as a player who had promise but never kicked on. However, last season he played well but was just a little inconsistent (as nearly all young players tend to be). This season his performances have been strong and consistent. I disagree with this comment in the sense that players don't really have 'breakout performances' except for at the very start of their career when they first get noticed. Smith has been a promising player for a while and what makes promising young players become good players is consistency, rather than one game in particular. Smith was probably Wigan's best player today but he was also our best player in the semi against Saints. In fact for all the obvious talk of Jai Field pre-match Wigan's best player since Leuluai's injury has been Harry Smith and I think he's won most of the clubs man of the match awards in that time. That's the most promising thing for Wigan fans. He was always capable of putting in an outstanding performance against weaker sides. He could put in some 7 out of 10 performances in big games. Right now though he's performing well enough to be a key player for us game after game. There's still a lot of flaws to work on but he really seems to be establishing himself in the side.

Some big bodies coming in which should beef up their pack. On his day Kasiano can make a big difference when coming off the bench. Not one of Super League's most consistent players but you take that risk with a player like that. Some consistent hard working forwards alongside him will balance that out. I'm not quite as impressed with Dudson. This season I think his performances are fairly average. A big body to have down the middle but not the best defender or the most impactful going forward. However, if the pack is struggling for size then a bigger average player is going to be more beneficial than a smaller average player.

I only referenced Liverpool fans because it just happened to be them in this instance. I remembered that Gilmour was subject to homophobic chants early in the season so googled it and discovered it was Liverpool fans on this occasion. It can happen anywhere at any club and is reflective of society rather than specific teams. I'm not surprised by Klopp calling it out - he's probably my favourite person in football even though I'm not a Liverpool fan. Gary Neville's comments on the environment at Man Utd aren't a surprise. I remember Rio Ferdinand asking on Twitter why there weren't any openly gay footballers in the Premier League - well during his playing days he used a homophobic slur on a radio show. That was a few weeks after Paul Scholes was criticised for using a homophobic slur towards an opponent. That might go some way to answering his question. Yes, those incidents were a long time ago, but those are two players who are now high profile pundits. How can anyone really be sure that attitudes have changed, if indeed they have? There's definitely reasons to be positive though and attitudes definitely seem to be improving, even if it's taking longer than it should.

It's a brave thing to do but hopefully a positive step towards changing attitudes towards homosexuality in sport. It no doubt adds a lot of extra pressure and scrutiny, which can be particularly challenging for someone so young. Inevitably there are plenty of comments on social media asking 'why is this news?'. The fact is it can't not be news. The only way things like this will stop being newsworthy is if it happens more and more frequently and people react with understanding and compassion and acceptance to the point where it's no longer a big deal. Right now, he's the only openly gay male footballer, so it is a big deal. You also can't ignore the culture within football. You only have to think back to the start of the season (you probably don't even have to go that far back, sadly) where Liverpool fans sang homophobic chants towards Billy Gilmour. You still hear homophobic chants in games at or against Brighton. It shouldn't be underestimated how difficult coming out can still be for anyone, but particularly for someone in football. Sadly though the only choices right now are to come out openly and publicly and face the attention, or forever have to hide that aspect of your life and never be seen out in public with a partner because newspapers would out you themselves.

I agree with this to some extent. The of the big differences between the two is definitely their levels of aggression in how they play the game. Bateman at his best can be a real mongrel in defence, whereas Farrell at his best is a solid, workhorse defender. If you were to put both of them up against a much bigger 110kg back row forward Bateman would be far more likely to put in a dominant tackle. That makes a difference at international level and its why Bateman would be considered 1st choice between the two by most coaches. Having said that, Farrell had a good year last year (hence why he was once again named in the dream team) and his form only dipped later in the year when he picked up an injury. Compare both players in terms of form in the last two years though and Farrell wins by a long, long way. Bateman is starting to show a bit more form which is great. If his form approaches what he's capable of he'll be right side second rower for England and I'd expect Whitehead to be on the left. I do think Farrell is more than worthy of a place in the England squad though. He's never really played badly in the 10 games he's played for England previously, and when you consider he's not played for England for 6 years that means he's never played for England while at his peak. He's not likely to let anyone down if he's selected, which is probably better as a back up player than someone who occasionally players well in Super League but lacks consistency. There's plenty about his game that can still make him a threat at international level. The lines he runs are second to none, he's got pace, agility, an underrated passing game and the intelligence to put himself in the right places at the right time. For me he's probably not going to be one of our starting players, but barring an unprecedented drop in form he has to make the squad.

I see Burnley have sacked Sean Dyche. Seems like a decision based entirely on the hope that a new manager might produce a brief upturn in form for the next 8 games. It might pay off, as sometimes managerial changes lead to a short run of improved form before things return to normal. Hard to see long term how a manager could do more at Burnley than Dyche when the board don't give the manager much money to work with by Premier League standards.

Looks like Gildart picked the wrong time and the wrong team for his opportunity in the NRL, although timing is probably down to bad luck due to his injuries. In previous years he'd been really good for Wigan, but last season with the persistent injuries his form completely fell away. He'd been a relatively solid defender, and always seemed to defend well on the occasions he came up against good opposition, but last year his defence was absolutely awful. The drop in standard was pretty shocking. Still showed a bit of class in attack at times but even that side of his game was inconsistent. To be going to the NRL on the back of some of the worst performances of his career and going to a team that is a bit of a shambles has put him on something of a hiding to nothing. Even in his very best form there were obviously aspects of his game that would need improving (his aerial ability is suspect for a league of 6 foot + super athletes) but anything below that form and it's hard to see anything other than him returning home early and signing for Wire next year.

And now Ten Haag has blown it too. To be fair to Pochettino, it's hard to put the blame on him for PSG's failure. They've been doing it since before he arrived. He essentially just hasn't been able to stop PSG doing a PSG, but there's a long list of managers who failed to stop PSG doing a PSG. Just look at Ancelotti and Tuchel as examples of coaches going on to have success almost immediately after they left Paris. Pochettino might end up being a good fit at Utd. Picking managers is a bit of a lottery. Klopp has been successful but he was a slow starter at Dortmund and Liverpool in terms of getting teams up the league. By the end of his time at Dortmund they were going downhill but he's been great for Liverpool. There are probably a few decent candidates for the Utd job but the board will still play a huge part in whether any manager can be successful.

Which sponsors have been Lenagan pushing his own products? The only time I can think of that happening was when we had Animalates as a shirt sponsor, but that was immediately after Applicado FS went bust, and it wasn't sponsorship as much as free advertising because there was nothing else to put there and was only for a handful of games. Asus is a good sponsor as long as they are paying good money to do so. If they aren't then the sponsorship isn't great but it's very rare we get any indication of what individual sponsors are paying. Besides, a cryptocurrency based fan platform with sponsorship deals with one of the biggest football leagues in the world, the current F1 constructors champions and several European football clubs isn't your stereotypical rugby league sponsor. Unfortunately Wigan were one of many who fell for what they were purported to be selling.