The term "strongest team" is subjective anyway.

A top player can lose form and be pretty dreadful for a period and he could be replaced by a player who's reputation is nothing like the man he replaces.

The fact that the replacement is in top form and playing extremly well would make him a part of the strongest team available.

The rivals of the next up opponents may claim that because "N" is being left out the coach isn't playing his strongest team. A couple more changes like that could, in their opinion, validate their claims.

I do like the squads being announced two days prior to the game.

To me it's a better system than the NRL where they seem to announce their squads on Tuesday no matter when their next game maybe. That's how I understand their system.

Spot on re. the term strongest team.



In the NRL they name their actual line-ups a day or two before the game.

IMO the coach should have the right to pick whatever side he sees fit. We get the 19 man squad before hand and we know which the important games are so it's not like there's any really excuse to be suprised. It's a very bruising campaign aand realistically we do need to rotate the squad if we want to have a chance in both cups. Plus I'd rather our young lads debut against Widnes, Hull KR etc as Burgess and Hampshire did than get thrown in the deep end when injuries hit as Murphy did (Ok that was his second game but you get my point).



Overall I think this will become a far smaller issue when the new system comes in next year as teams won't have the security of knowing it's an 8 team play off, allowing them to lose the odd game

In my opinion the coach does what's right for his team. It may be harsh on Bradford that we've fielded a strong team against them and a weaker team against Wakefield but it was in our best interests to do so with 3 games in 7 days.

Why not? That rule existed for decades and was taken as read.







Being hard to enforce doesn't mean you should not have the rule. It's not that hard to enforce it anyway. I am not sure what your point is/was about minor injuries but whatever it was I don't see what minor injuries have got to do with a team fielding an obviously reserve grade side and so being asked to explain why.

I bet you didn't say that if you were on here when Millward sent a reserve Saints side to Bradford a few years ago.







It's about the integrity of the competition, not if the fans are surprised.







So you do see the issue then?

I am now certain that you are being deliberately obtuse.



But just in case, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EXTREME CASES WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A COACH IS FIELDING A RESERVE SIDE!!!!!!!!!!



For the umpteenth time, I am talking about a week to week basis when coaches just make 2 or 3 changes. How can you police that? How can anyone but the coach decide what his "strongest 17" is for any particular game? If a coach picks 17 players one week and makes 2 changes the week after, which is his strongest team? In which instance would he breaking the rules? Again, for your sake, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EXTREME CASES.



With regards to minor injuries, again I am repeating myself but I'll try again. If a coach didn't pick a certain player as he had a very slight injury that he didn't want to risk, and by the time that player was referred to the RFL doctor the day after the injury had improved, how will the RFL prove that he was injured sufficiently to warrant missing the game?

A match made in heaven, or hell.....

A coach shouldn't always field his strongest team.



How would he assess the younger fringe players, who may have to come into the side if there are are injuries to his "strongest" side.



It's horses for courses IMO.



Onto Wigan strongest side IF everyone was available.

Bowen

Charnley

Thornley

Gelling

Burgess

Green

Smith

Taylor

McIlorum

Flower

Farrell

Bateman

O'Loughlin



Pettybourne

Clubb

J Tomkins

Sarginson



18th and 19th in squad

Powell

Crosby.

Rogues, what's the advantage in playing Sarginson off the bench? I know he can play anywhere 1-6 but surely in the modern game these are positions you don't plan to substitute. Meanwhile McIlorum presumably has to plough on for the full 80 at hooker

Sometimes we don't use our 17th man at all or only for 10-15 mins so I can understand why Rogues would suggest putting a guy that could cover every back position on the bench tbh. If Micky Mac needed a rest then I'm sure Sarginson would even make a fist of playing there tbh (although Micky Mac plays his best rugby when he's asked to do 80 mins IMO).



He's turning in to a very useful player Sarginson.

I'd have Powell and Crosby in over Sarginson and Eddy. Sarg may eventually force his way in but I'm not sure in what position. He's got excellent attacking attributes such as speed and footwork but I don't think he's a natural centre. I think FB is his best position but ultimately I think Rocky will be a better option there.