In both the CC final and last week's game I'd have preferred to see us kick for touch instead (this was at the time that the kicks were taken and not with the benefit of hindsight - obviously I was delighted with the Wigan result and cared not a jot whether it was achieved through tries or kicks).

Can we afford to try the same tactic again this weekend or do we need to be more positive? McGuire's return, and the Warrington's propensity to score relatively heavily suggests to me we should attack their line.

Thoughts?

Kicking for goal is almost always the wrong thing to do. Circumstances have to be exceptional to do anything other than run it, much like opting to bat first on winning the toss in cricket.
It's a sign of weakness, an admission that you don't reckon you can break the opposition down in the next passage of play. Also, ask yourself what your opposition would like to do less - defend another set or have a breather for 90 seconds?

On Friday 'apparently ' it was the right thing to do,each match demands different tactics also weather conditions plays a big part.

That being said, it was clearly the game plan on friday and we obviously thought without Tomkins we'd have enough defensively to win the game by the small margin.

I was dissapointed to see us taking the 2 at 8-0 up but in hindsight, obviously, Sir Kev knows best.

I wouldn't expect quite so many penalities on saturday however. The game will be won by a greater margin for either team. McGuire back is obviously a boost.

Off topic BUT I always think Rugby Union award mediocrity by giving 3 points for the penalty. What's the point in going for the try? Saracens haven't scored a try in 3 games now and have won 1, drawn 1, lost 1. </rant>

Was just about to say the same thing.

The confluence of circumstances aligned correctly in that instance.

Well, whatever happens it's unlikely we'll be taking the 2 very often. That would be very out of character.

I think you have to judge the game, and how it's been played. Is it something where teams are going to score in the teens, or in the thirties?

You just take the one pointer instead.

Taking the two is not a sign of weakness if it actually is the most realistic propsect of scoring points.

People are forgetting how poor our attack is in our opponent’s 10m and how good the Wigan and Warrington defences are on their own line. We are much, much better at building momentum from deep and scoring long range tries and tries from kicks. We should play to our strengths.

It would be far worse for our confidence to kick to touch and be constantly repelled by Warrington’s organised, well-coached goal line defence.

This. I don't think you make these decisions in advance. On Friday, as the game panned out, both defences were tough to break down, and attacking sets overwhelmingly did not produce tries. So the 4 points we got free and gratis form the kicking tee were crucial and absolutely the right thing to do.

For the WIre fan who says it would be out of character - it was for us under Tony Smith too. But in the 2004 GF, the difference between the sides in the end was Sinfield's boot - including 2 first half penalties that we would doubtless have run during the regular season.

I disagree that its a sign of weakness. I consider it a strength, in knowing when to take points and when to turn the screw.

In many of our GF vitories, we have taken the points on offer from the tee, but at other times we have run the ball. It just depends on the circumstances. And I trust Sir Kev to know when best to take either option