The current Wigan squad has the following middles.



Clubb (well past it)

Burgess (signed on marquee money open secret his hip was gone.

Flower (well past his best)

Partington (aggressive lightweight)

Bullock (rotation prop)

Byrne (see Partington)

Clark (back up prop)

Harvard (kid with potential)

Shorocks (aggressive but lightweight)

Singleton (decent rotation)

Kilner (kid with potential)



That’s 11 middles (12 if you include Locky) and no quality.



Loads of quantity but no quality.



Grand finals are won on wet nights in Autumn.



Out of the 11 above the only ones personally I would retain in an ideal worlds are -



Bullock

Havard

Singleton

Kilner



Then bring in 3 proper experienced heaveyweight props.



It’s a shame to let good young players go but if we want to win trophies we won’t while we are trying to bring through so many young Props at the same time.



It’s even more of an issue when you consider our second row.



Faz and Isa outstanding on the front foot but never going to put you on the front foot as both lightweight.



Greenwood, big lad, but no heart.



Bateman next year, again wonderful player but lightweight needs a platform.



You look at the top SL teams they have NRL hardened experienced props, we have none, (Burgess see above).



It’s a massive squad imbalance.



I’d rather 7 middles with 3 of real quality than 11 with no real/or little quality.

You mean props?

Why mention second rowers in terms of props?

I hate the term middle. It's meaningless.



Let's call them all athletes and be done with it.



We try to redefine our game when its simplest background is almost ignored ignored. Forwards with no bant are on the whole totally useless.



We have too many forwards with no bant. You go ahead with middles but at the end of the day it's about laying the platform. We have physicality but no bant.

I call middles middle players, it’s not a term that is uncommon to most.



Generally Props and loose are middles.



They get involved down the middle of the field and put teams on the front foot, hence why they are called middles.



Why mention second rowers? Because if you have a big meter eating secondrow you can maybe sacrifice a big middle. We don’t have that though. We have small strike secondrow forwards who need a platform set by the middles if they are to be at their best.



See above and the results in big games, no quality middles no trophies.

Shorrocks is surely not a middle, even if we have been playing him as such. I'd still hang on to him as a squad player, though. Burgess was a bad, bad signing. Does anyone really believe he will ever be any good for Wigan?

Another semi final defeat under a poor coach doesn’t make the youngsters bad players. There’s loads of potential with guys like Byrne and Partington but that’s all it is currently, potential. I mentioned in another thread the other day that the prop position is at a funny stage for us in that we have rafts of potentially very good ones who aren’t that yet but then we have experienced ones who are done and need moving on. The Burgess signing is the big one that has hurt us. To add him to two guys in Flower and Clubb who are done was an extremely poor move and we could pay for that for another few seasons yet. We shouldn’t have given Clubb a new deal and we certainly should think of handing Ben Flower one either.

Just a thought but why do we always trudge the "middles down the middle"? What about changing the point of attack for the big guys and use them perhaps 15 yards wider creating a wider open side?

Then your halves and backs either run out of room if you go further towards the sideline, or they end up going sideways rather than forwards if you try to send them up the middle. When I say sideways, I mean it starts that way but very quickly ends up going backwards once those opposition forwards (who you haven't tired out because you send your own forwards wider) get hold of them. You have to lay some sort of platform up the middle or even the best halves and backs in the world will struggle.

But whatever happened to sending several drives arcing out towards the touchline to create space for the backs to run into or even splitting the big forwards to shift the point of impact from left to right to move their big forwards around. I know that each of these has been tried and a well organised team should be able to nullify it but the well organised attack should be able to benefit before they do. Teams should be able to change the game plan if needed or change should be built into the game plan. The simple truth is that our team at the moment are not really that big or quick and throwing them one at a time against a well coached defence does not work and we do not have the ability to try something different.

'middles' is a lazy term from Oz which over simplifies things, and means you don't have to explain anything properly. It wins me up too, but then most things do.....

Fair enough, I think you have a deeper insight into the game in this regard so I'll take your word on it. It was annoying me how we seemed to keep sending forwards back into the markers, making it a fight to get past where we had just been tackled, rather than 5 easy metres forward before the defence even makes contact.

You missed Smithies

Simple put -



I think we are all happy with the kids - Havard, Smithies, Partington, Byrne, Sharrocks etc



I think most are pretty happy with the developing props - Bullock and Clark.



The problem is our 3 experienced Front line “main props”



Clubb Flower and Burgess. All look finished. Disaster.



As I’ve said before if we put our developing/young props behind a “Hill Cooper” “Walamsley Graham/Thompson hell even a “Mossop and Dudson” “Watts and Griffin” type partnership we’d be fine.



It’s the experienced props holding us back and an over reliance on the kids.