Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:41 am  

DaveO wrote:

What is the point of keeping Hock's money in the safe for a year? This is a rugby club not a bank! The idea is toi win trophies not generate cash.

because as well as being a rugby club, it's also a business, what about the other facilities the club has, orrell, central park (pem high) and the shop in the town Centre as well as the old shop that is now the lotto base, all this stuff as well as paying fees for players like smith, green and taylor all cost money

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:53 am  

Smalls wrote:

Your probably right Sally. But if we are thinking along those lines I think Saints may have a head start on us!

Saints still have seven players over the age of 30 in their squad for next season, they too will have big problems replacing them as there is nothing in their academy in those positions.

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:05 pm  

While I am concerned about the potential loss of quality to the NRL and Union due to the salary cap, I think many on here are being premature in predicting the death knell of Rugby League in this country, and also the decline of Wigan next year if we lose Hock.

While Gaz is a decent player, there are far more important players in the squad, integral to wigan's success in the future, who I would be more concerned if they were leaving. In no particular order Charnley / Richards / Hughes / Murphy / Powell / Mossop / McIllorum / Dudson / Farrell / Hansen / O'Loughlin are all more important to the club going forward than Gaz Hock IMO, and I would be far more concerned if we were losing one of those than Gaz!

People seem to get misty eyed when talking about Hock (Millward being the perfect example yesterday) and forget the flaws in his game. Gaz had a stinker yesterday for England but got MOM - He lost us two opportunities for tries with stupid offloads, and gave away a N0b head needless penalty to gift France their only try - Against Australia he could have cost us up to 18 points and potentially the game.

Which goes exactly to the point of why Hock is NOT the world class forward many claim. The fact is if Parramatta get Hock they are getting a vastly overrated player, who will have to change his game in the NRL or he will fail.

He simply doesn't have the intelligence or vision to be world class, to know when and when not to offload, and gives away too many silly penalties. His M.O is simply to throw the ball out wherever when he goes into the tackle and hope the team pick up the pieces - when they do he looks excellent, but many forget his constant brain farts which lose possession, territory and points! He is the forward version of Kevin Brown (only that people perceive Brown as the opposite) This is exactly why, forwards like O'Loughlin / Ellis / Burgess / Gallen / Blair etc are light years ahead of him in World Class stakes.

The epitome of Gaz Hock for me was Wire last year - He scores a try single-handedly to get us back in the game, but 2 minutes later throws a stupid ball to wire, which then gifts them the try he has just got for us back (most remember the former but conveniently forget the latter, hence the claims of world class).

I would go as far to say that Wigan will be a better team next year without Hock, and for this reason I am almost hopeful he goes - As other posters have pointed out, for us to get anywhere near competing next season, we've got to go back to the madge first season game plan, where completion and hard yards and graft are key. We have the forward power IMO to do this even with the losses we've had, but if we aren't able to get near a 90/95% completion rate next year, we'll get nowhere- as we have simply lost too much gamebreaking talent to pull us back if we are losing ball and completing only around 70-80% of our sets.

Gaz Hock goes against this gameplan as he is worth 2-3 often key errors a game, which is why in all honesty I think we will be stronger without! In a team with the talent we had last year, Hock was a great player to have, as the rest of the team could pick up his slack - Next year will be different. Sure we will miss his rampaging runs and offloads when they come off, but with the losses we have, and the team we will have next year, Hock is simply too high risk for what will need to be our game plan IMO.

Perhaps, if Hock wants to go to NRL, Leneghan and Wane are already thinking this, and this is why we are happy to negotiate with parra?!

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:19 pm  

some reasonable points, but a tad OTT.
the truth of hock is somewhere between the hyperbole and the brick bats. on his day, he is the most devastating forward in SL, but he does get greedy and often blow as many tries as he creates through poor choices.

there is also another factor. i believe that he is at the same point in his career as Morley was when he went over. our beloved judiciary have his number and will punish him in a manner that they reserve for no one else within our game. in a new country, with no reputation before him, he may able to have the final flourish to his career that his hard work in recent times deserve (he spent his off-period very well, and showed maturity that was sadly lacking in his behaviour to earn his time-off).

yes, hock has the X-factor, but he is no lockers or tommy.
we will miss him if we do not replace him, but he is definitely replaceable.

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm  

ShortArse wrote:

some reasonable points, but a tad OTT.
the truth of hock is somewhere between the hyperbole and the brick bats. on his day, he is the most devastating forward in SL, but he does get greedy and often blow as many tries as he creates through poor choices.

there is also another factor. i believe that he is at the same point in his career as Morley was when he went over. our beloved judiciary have his number and will punish him in a manner that they reserve for no one else within our game. in a new country, with no reputation before him, he may able to have the final flourish to his career that his hard work in recent times deserve (he spent his off-period very well, and showed maturity that was sadly lacking in his behaviour to earn his time-off).

yes, hock has the X-factor, but he is no lockers or tommy.
we will miss him if we do not replace him, but he is definitely replaceable.

Would agree wholeheartedly with that, which is, for once on these boards, a rounded and reasonable appraisal of Hock's talents. Yes he can be the most devastating forward in SL on his day, but can also, on any other day, be the most brain-dead, idiotic liability in the league (accepted to lesser extents now, but sadly this is still part of his game)!

He's a coaches absolute nightmare, which I think you could see by McBanana's appraisal of his game when asked yesterday!

Frankly I don't think Hock being here or Hock not next season will make too much difference when all is weighed up as stated above.

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:49 pm  

Hock on his day is unplayable but I would sooner take Ellis any day of the week.
If Hock does go to Australia I would guess he will be spending most of the season on the sidelines having been banned for either head high tackles or use of the elbow.
His enforcer type role will serve him no use whatsoever out there and he could be a lonely man by letting his team down time after time.
He will need a strong coach out there and may regret the move.
Yesterday was a prime example of how he needs to control his aggression and that was after we were comfortably beating the French.
Really not sure how he got MOM either considering the penalties he gave, the knock ons and the forward passes.
For me Mossop and Watkins were better choices on the day,

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:15 pm  

I agree with the last few posts about Hock, even though I've always been a big Hock fan, on the Wire board I was saying we should have gone in for him when he was banned like we did with Gleeson, which wasn't a popular view...

The big problem with Hock is his age. Not that at 29 he's too old to be a force in the game, but I think it's too late for a leopard to change its spots. Morley could be a liability in the early part of his career but he matured in his mid 20s and these days nobody thinks of him as a potential risk for being banned/sent off or trouble off the field. Hock has always had the same issues, when a guy in his late 20s is eye gouging the year after coming back from a 2 year drugs ban its a signal he has a few screws loose or he doesn't really care that much about the risk he's creating of putting his teammates under pressure by being banned.

I wonder how Hock would have gone on at Wigan had his career been 15 or so years earlier, the likes of Shaun Edwards and Dean Bell would have put a rocket up his booty early on if he had been throwing in high tackles, giving away penalties with the frequency he does. I think if he had matured and had the kind of relentless professional attitude those guys had, Hock would have been regarded in the class of guys like Farrell, Sculthorpe etc.

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:32 pm  

Morley was 29 when he got his lifetime NRL ban. Not sure what your point is.

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:50 pm  

Wigg'n wrote:

Morley was 29 when he got his lifetime NRL ban. Not sure what your point is.

Since when does seven matches equal a lifetime? Are you a dog?

Re: Hock : Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:16 pm  

That is a fair point by Wigg'n, I'd forgotten Morley kneed Corey Hughes in his last season at the Roosters. Must have been since he was with us he matured, maybe it was having the captaincy.