We do have the benefit of Field showing what he can do now though - which can make both French & Field look a little bit of a luxury - but at the time, not resigning French would have been madness as he was our only bright spark in a otherwise lacklustre team.

These two are the players who get fans on their feet and excited about coming to a game - I don't see them as being exclusive and they can play together in the same team - I think we could have got another prop without sacrificing one of them. I do think French at FB, Field in the halves, Cust at 9 is by far our best combination - fits in players who are a threat in their more natural positions without sticking French/Field to the wing where neither are suited.

Where we have got our recruitment and strategy wrong is too many of the same type of players - as others have said.

Difficult decisions but these were the type of decision we got right in the 80's - letting nice people go who were not quite good enough or had been here too long. One or two of our young props need to be let go, Isa shouldn't have been resigned, Zak on the wing is looking like an expensive waste of talent - not his best position and probably paying him too much to be a bit part player.

This could have funded another prop and we have a far stronger balanced squad whilst keeping both Field and french.

Couldn't disagree more. French and Field in the same side is exactly the type of team we should be aiming to have at Wigan. Facilitate it by all means by surrounding them with the right players but it shouldn't be an either/or. Not resigning French when there are any amount of players we could reasonably lose before him would be criminal.

We resigned Hastings?

Wasn’t he on a two year deal and that’s what he stayed for?

It’s only after seeing Fields performances that people are mentioning not re signing French. Everyone at the time wanted it to happen.

I agree that there's others I'd move on before French, but you can only look at who's ooc.

As with most things - look at Saints. They decided not to get into a bidding war for Coote as they already had a very good #1. That's allowed them to strengthen other areas and, as a whole, they are stronger. Coote might have been the better FB, but the players they've been able to bring in massively outweighs that.

We don't need two quality FB's in the side.

You're right, we don't need 2 quality fullbacks in the side in principle but it's good to have 2 who can play to such a high standard in such a pivotal position to cover injury, loss of form and, in the present climate, suspensions.

We do, however, need 2 quality players in the side (well, more than 2 obviously, but you get the point I'm making). The question is not should we have one or the other but where do we fit both in the side. Both players can play multiple positions. Field 1 and 6 (and possibly wing) and French fullback and wing without question. I would argue that neither half nor wing are settled in our team so there is more than enough scope to fit them both in.

Tommy/Field halves with Cust at 9 or Cust/Field halves with Tommy spelling hooker both look potentially better than we currently have. We already know that French has the ability to be among the best in the league from fullback.

If you don't want to move Field then French and Marshall on the wings gives us pace to burn. There is no substitute for pace as we've seen from Field already this year.

In both instances we have a top quality 1 to cover injuries etc. I'm not sure what the downside is to be honest.

I think the only downside is what their salary does to the cap and what that means for other positions.

If we spend £300k (both marquee) on Field and French then can we manage to fit quality players into the side in the other key positions like 6,7,8,9,10 etc and still manage to get a strong squad or do we end up like Warrington who have a good 1-17 on paper but crumble after that?

One thing I will say about our recruitment/squad is that when we have been missing 7 and 8 players at a time we are still able to put out a team that in most cases is able to compete and has even won a run of games. Not every club can do that and TBH I don't actually think any can and I include Saints in that as shown pretty much every time they play a weak team. How many sides were unable to field a team last year and forfeited? We played three games missing 11 players and won 2 of them.

We aren't going to have a squad of world beaters, nobody is in a salary capped sport, so you have to balance the money as best you can and throwing massive money at two players that both play the same position doesn't seem the right way to do it. If we lose one of French/Field and bring in a big forward to replace them then that is better than having both of them playing behind a crap pack.

Of course, if we manage to keep both of them and spend marquee money elsewhere then it's a piece of absolute brilliance.

I don't know the finances or what those 2 players are on so I can't really comment other than to say neither are marquee at the moment (?) and couldn't be next year either as Bateman has a marquee contract. If we can't afford both then that's another matter, of course but, as a principal, we should be looking to get as many top players in as possible and both certainly fall into that category.

Agree, but you would think if the NRL are sniffing around them that we would need to pay big bucks to keep them because they currently hold the advantage when it comes to wages. If the marquee spots are gone then we need to count their full salaries on the cap which creates another problem.

It isn't as simple as keeping a player because he's quality otherwise we'd be signing world class players like it's 1992.

Of course I understand we work to a salary cap but then so does everyone else and they seem to be able to do it. Catalans, Saints and Warrington all have plenty players who will be on big money. How much do you reckon it took to keep Walmsley, Lomax, Roby, Coote etc at the club last year? And don't even get me started on Warrington!

French and Field are worth marquee money at FB. There's been nothing to say they'd be worth that playing at 6. Surely it's a better option to get an out and out HB and pay them?

Again, like Saints, why would they have kept Coote and paid Welsby FB money to sit on the wing. It makes no sense.

Lomax/Roby/Walmsley all joined low and home grown rarely are top earners.

Coote was released for the very reason that we could not afford his wage request.

And as pointed out, Wire don't have a good squad because they can't afford one. Few injuries and they're playing props on the wing.

Not sure what you mean by "Can't afford one".

They are as rich as any club in the UK, I don't think the money is the issue, just the injuries and perhaps type of player in positions they have brought in, Inglis probably the first problem issue.

Give over mate. You're telling me that you have Lomax and, particularly, Walmsley on low money? Roby would have been a top earner for most of his career too. Coote came on decent money. You couldn't afford his increased wage demand this year. You still had to pay him good money last year along with all the others.

Leeds stars all played for peanuts too, don't you know.

But you can't equate the money Warrington are paying their first 17 to an increase for French and Field. The increase for those is not all extras .. we're already paying a good proportion of what we'd need to pay to keep them. It would be covered several times over by Tommy and Zak's wages.

And that's before we get into the difference in Academies when discussing squad depth

I didn't say they were on low money, I said they started on low money, and usually, home grown players never end up earning top salaries.

I would say that Saints salaries were pretty flat across the main 13, unlike some teams where they wil have some high earners and low earners.

True. But there's nothing to say it wouldn't either. Why look on the negative? If Field works out at 6 or French on the wing it would be a no brainer.

Let's at least see first.

They still have the same salary cap as everyone else.

They spend most of that on the first choice 17 meaning they have little to spend elsewhere.

Hey, they are marquee props tho so it's ok.

exactly my point..... which team wouldnt spend most of the their money on their first choice 17?

And there are dispensations for home grown players available

Guess the definition is what we class as "most". Do other teams send 90% and Wire spend 99%?

I very much doubt that mate. You'll have high earners (Lomax, Walmsley, Makinson etc) and low earners (Amor, LMS and some of the younger players).

A flat pay structure is the same argument Leeds used and it was garbage then too. Market forces don't allow it.

Yes, should have worded it better. They have all of these superstars in their first 17, leaving little for other areas of the squad.

The likes of Wigan, Saints and Leeds have players considered "ordinary" (how many of our fans ahve criticised signings like Thornley, Bibby, Miski etc) or young academy lads on low wages meaning they can have bigger squads.

They clearly do, it is not exactly hard to work out which teams are paying up/down wages and which are flat.