I wouldn't say it was IL fault for ignoring recruitment of a good pack. I am sure IL would have passed some of this responsibility to BN as he brought in Fielden who is the main cause of the problem.



BN is ultimately responsible for this problem because he has maxed out the budget for the pack with a prop who can be a good squad player but not the leader we really need.



IL will probably need a large chunk of the salary cap for this 'leader' which probably isn't available at the moment. This hasn't been helped by the recruitment of Amos, Gleeson & Riddell. These players have come available at the wrong time when we really needed a leader but I agree with IL decision to recruit these players now and not let the opportunities pass.



IL will be looking for long term solutions. The backs are now sorted! The forwards need more recruitment / replacements. We can't have everything all at once and we need to take our recruitment opportunities when we can, even if this leaves us with a short term problem. I can't criticise IL yet. If we don't recruit a leader when the opportunity comes available I will then start my criticism.

Weren't all the 5 props under contract at the time IL took over????????



What was he supposed to do then? Sign 2 x more and have weaknesses in the Backs????????

he could have off loaded the poor playters and brought in better by now.

he managed it with gleeson and mathers. off loading mathers was a minor miracle. so he should certainly be able to do it with the forwards . thats just my opinion anyhow

Sign 1 prop and Gleeson rather than Mathers and Roberts. I think Roberts will come good for us but not a player we need.

That's about the size of it. The advantage to having roberts is it offers the chance of rotating the backs as form/fatigue/tactics (i know i know) demands. However, it's a luxury in the backs when we need the basics in the pack.

This is really the issue. They are not performing and so it is THE issue that needed sorting out. Packs win matches, the backs decide by how many.



A stubborn, "We have 5 props so I ain't buying any more" attitude does not solve the problem.



We have signed backs we don't really need or could do without which are IMO Roberts, Phelps and maybe Smith as well. That ought to be enough cap space for at least one top class prop.



So what if we signed another top class prop we ended up with Fielden sat in the stands watching a prop equivalent to his former self doing the job for us?



Better that than having a really good back line that is running around behind a beaten pack. Barrett was wasted in the two year she was here IMO.



IMO the signing of Roberts was completely an IL thing and so given the pack is poop I think it is fair to say IL can take the blame for not rectifying the situation with better recruitment.



I am sure IL thinks the players we do have in the pack should do better but he must have realised by now this isn't going to happen.



Dave

Which props would you have signed that would have been a marked improvement on what you've got though? Not that many have changed clubs that would have made a great deal of difference and didn't Carvell price himself out of a deal with you?

Wigan did try to sign Carvell (they actually thought they had got him) but then wouldn't get involved in a THIRD upping of the price, and left the auction.

The way Carvell priced himself out of the deal if correct (upping the price several times) is one issue but the signing of Gleeson for a six figure sum shows players are available for the right price.



They don't have to be out of contract. Fielden wasn't.



Dave

You make it sound criminally negligent by the chairman. Yet look at what you're actually saying: we've got 5 props, but they're not working out so we need to buy more.



Where does that mentality end?



If you've got underperforming players, you don't keep on buying new men for that position, with more and more men sitting in the stand.



He inherited a situation where we had 5 props on contract. At least two of those props are, or recently were, international standard. Surely it's a better option to try to get the coach to bring them back to form rather than spending money on yet more props?



To call it a stubborn attitude is one way to look at it, but you could also call it's a realistic appraisal of a difficult situation.

Very true Cruncher.



It gets to the stage were you have to make the best out of what you've got. If so called less talented coaches like Kear can do it with players who have never reached the heights the likes of Fielden have then why can't Noble?



Wigan is a team that is majorly underperforming for the players it has. IL can't keep getting new ones all the time and sooner or later it’s going to be the coach that has to leave.



I think that’s one a lot of people can agree on

But that's DaveO opinion of what IL did it so it must be right!



Bear in mind when we had 5 props I also asked the question if there not good enough then How many do we want!



I don't believe O'Carroll is good enough but if he had got rid of him he would have been slated again!

Coley & Fielden aint performing, certainly in Fieldens case, not up to the level that his wages warrant, but what do we do???



He can't make them leave, He can't reduce their money currently!!!!



What if they have tried to sign other props but they wouldn't come for the money we had available????

What if they just didn't want to come?????



So we had the option of signing 2 x backs that did want to come and we could get them under the cap by whatever means for this season, it doens't mean he could get the right Priops!



Or



He could just have got it Wrong!



Does DaveO know factually 100% gauranteed which one of these is the truth??



We can all sit back and see that were short of Grunt up front, putting it right isn't always a Quick thing to do and not always possible immediately!