Interesting you would rather play sam at 6 and take green out, I think Green is a better 6 than Tomkins (not a better player but a better 6) and i think tomkins is a better player than bowen even though i love Bowen.

I personally wouldn't taken Gleeson even though we massively missed him when he got sacked. Gelling has improved to the same level as gleeson in my opinion. Still Gleeson was quality when his head was correct.

Pat Richards my favourite recent Wigan legend but Joe Burgess provides everything that pat richards did bar goal kicking and really its a testament to how good burgess is.

I wish Coley was still playing be great to see him under Shaun as i think he had a lot more attacking skills that Madges game plan didn't allow.

When Hansen was in the Wigan team he was a player that you would also look for but since his left i don't think bateman or Farrell are lesser players than him.

Biggest talking point which i think will go on for the next decade is who would you rather have out of Wane and Madge, personally i think we are a much better team with Wane but then again Madge only had 2 years and the Rabbitohs played some really good attacking rugby this season under madge.

I think that's a bit revisionist tbf and it also depends on what we are saying. Are we picking a side to play a one off game and assuming everyone was at the same level they either were in 2010 or are currently at?

If we are picking a side for a one off game then Pat, the 2010 MOS, has to be in there. Like wise Gleeson showed more in that season then Gelling has this. I'm not knocking Gelling but the season Gleeson has in 2010 was simply class.

Likewise i'd also take Piggy as 2nd hooker.

I don't think you can split Wane and Maguire. They've worked perfectly as head coaches following on from each other. Maguire came in, made us more professional and put the systems in place we follow to this day. Wane then came in and carried that on whilst putting up with losing a number of players year in year out. His knowledge of the academies and the talent available from within has been much needed.

I agree you can't split them.

Without a doubt Wane's teams are more attacking and entertaining. On the other side of the coin Madge's team are a lot tougher and ruthless.

You could argue that the increased intensity we have seen over the past month is the type of defence we saw regularly under Madge. So i guess Wane has found a formula to combine the both but only for a limited period of time.

It might not be to everyones taste BUT i'd happily swap a flowing attacking style for ruthless aggression. You could tell from the pathetic outbursts in the media that players didn't like going up against a Wigan side coached by Madge as they knew we would smash them in every tackle from the 1st to 80th minute. I seriously loved how tough the game got under him.

In my view Wigan are a better team under Wane in both attack and defence. Wane's system has more attacking options than Madge's. In the big games I always felt that Wigan looked predictable whereas under Wane there are more options.
I also like the way that Wane has changed the way that the backs run the ball back into the line. They run much harder into the line.

As well as just wanting to win today because it is a final and against Saints but I would really like to see a match up between a Wane and Madge team. Then we may see who is the better coach.

I agree that Wigan seem better both in attack and defence under Wane but I think part of the progression has to be down to methods and processes brought in by Madge. Wane has obviously done a fantastic job and has been rewarded with a fully deserved 3 year contract but I think even he will give some credit to Madge in the way he shook up an unsuccessful team into champions in such a short period of time and set the basis for what we see now.