: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:52 am  

Cruncher wrote:

You always attach a level of technical expertise to your posts, Jon, which I find quite persuasive.

I just think this idea verges on the completely daft because it would involve wholesale tampering with the Wigan team - i.e. bringing in a completey new halfback pairing (despite Sam showing all the signs that he's going to be either our 6 or 7 for years to come) - purely to accommodate a 33-year-old who's after a final payday. And because it refuses to take into account that you can't just 'get rid' of people who are on contracts (i.e. Riddell).

It was an interesting idea to put forward for a bit of speculative chat. But I'm surprised that anyone is prepared to defend it.

Agreed.

It is a crazy idea, especially with the staff we already have on board for 2010.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:05 pm  

Tomkins is a halfback and has been all the way throughout his career. We're in deseprate need as a club and country to find some good, young, English halfbacks so what do some people want to do.............move him to fullback

It's turn him into another Richard Horne and he'd end up as a jack of all trades master of none type.

The only positional change of a young player i'd like to see is Mike McILorum taking a place in the backrow when Bailey leaves. Rightfully or wrongly he's going to struggle to get a place at 9 next year imo and i wouldn't want to risk losing him.

I believe he could offer as much if not more then Bailey in attack from that position and defends just aswell yet hurts people more so then Bailey.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:47 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

Tomkins is a halfback and has been all the way throughout his career. We're in deseprate need as a club and country to find some good, young, English halfbacks so what do some people want to do.............move him to fullback

It's turn him into another Richard Horne and he'd end up as a jack of all trades master of none type.

The only positional change of a young player i'd like to see is Mike McILorum taking a place in the backrow when Bailey leaves. Rightfully or wrongly he's going to struggle to get a place at 9 next year imo and i wouldn't want to risk losing him.

I believe he could offer as much if not more then Bailey in attack from that position and defends just aswell yet hurts people more so then Bailey.

the lad has got the attitude without a doubt but has he got the size? we are already light up front as it is and i beleive he is only around the 13 stone mark. this is my only concern about this situation.

My shout for a 2nd row place is Prescott. i feel he is more suited here because he lacks the natural bulk to be a line busting Prop. he does have a great work ethic and a bit of speed. this could work wonders out wide.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:52 pm  

tugglesf78 wrote:

the lad has got the attitude without a doubt but has he got the size? we are already light up front as it is and i beleive he is only around the 13 stone mark. this is my only concern about this situation.

My shout for a 2nd row place is Prescott. i feel he is more suited here because he lacks the natural bulk to be a line busting Prop. he does have a great work ethic and a bit of speed. this could work wonders out wide.

He hits weigh above his weight so i don't think his size is a real problem.

I watched Dallas Johnson this morning playing loose forward for an unbelievable Queensland side and he is just as small as McIlorum if not slightly smaller(in bulk). He just runs his blood to water in the position and moves the ball on.

As for Prescott i don't think he's got the footwork to play second row but he would be a handfull outwide i suppose.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:43 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

He hits weigh above his weight so i don't think his size is a real problem.

I watched Dallas Johnson this morning playing loose forward for an unbelievable Queensland side and he is just as small as McIlorum if not slightly smaller(in bulk). He just runs his blood to water in the position and moves the ball on.

As for Prescott i don't think he's got the footwork to play second row but he would be a handfull outwide i suppose.

From a certian web based encyclopedia Dallas J is 14.7 stone micky is 12.6. i know that this is just an estimate because of website accuracy and the player either gaining or losing weight over the course of the season.

i agree %100 about his attitude and aggresion, but the proof is in the pudding i suppose and him having a runnout is the only way we will see if it would work.

again this is pure speculation but what about in the centres?. he aint slow, has got decent hands, is a good support player and cant smash the best of them. also we are more need of a Centre than a 2nd row. although we have got cover in both positions

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:13 pm  

There is no point playing Tomkins at FB, I see the point people are trying to make but it would not work in super league. Pat is ideal to play there in super league and also Tomkins makes a better 6 or 7 so why not play him in his best position.

Steinlager sums it up very well.

McIlorum at 13 would be ok but again there is only any point if he needs to fill in for someone, we currently have one of the form 13's in super league playing there, so why change it.

Re: rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:43 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

Like Gleeson, you mean?

Or like so many for whom the Wigan glass is always half-empty, does Gleeson not count because his capture doesn't suit your argument?

Gleeson has been the only class player that IL has signed. But players like Riddell, Pryce, Roberts, Phelps even Tim Smith have not done enough to justify being regarded as a success.

Seems my glass is not half empty its about 3 quarters empty though. We need more players of the calibre of Gleeson and not players like Mathers. The next 2 players we sign will determine if we are going to go forward or go backwards.

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:14 pm  

I don't see why we'd want to play Tomkins at full back.

He get crucified on kick returns and wouldn't be as influential in attack as he would at 6/7. He would be brilliant in support granted however, he wouldn't see enough of the ball.

Why sacrifice the best young talent at the club to make way in the squad for an Aussie who isn't performing?

-----------------------------------------

In regards to Bailey wanting a contract extension, it unfortunately just isn't practical. He is a great guy to have in the team and at the club, but we are overloaded with younger and cheaper options in the back row. For next season we're looking at:

O'Loughlin
Hock
Hansen
J Tomkins
Mossop
Farrell

With probably only 4 spots available in the 17 most weeks, this is the maximum number of second rowers we should be carrying.

I haven't seen either Mossop or Farrell in the academy/reserves so can't comment but are both looking ready for first team opportunities from next season? Do either look ready to be in the squad regularly?

Next year is a massive year for Hansen. He really needs to step up and prove he's good enough to cement a Wigan shirt for the next few years. If he doesn't, then I'm not sure he'll get a renewal at the end of nexy year.

Personally I'm a big fan of Hansen's. He is superb in defence and consistently makes more tackles than most in Super League, and he runs some of the best lines in the squad in attack. The only problem is he doesn't run nearly enough of them. With Bailey going I'd like to see Hansen become a bit of a leader of the pack, and I think he has it in him.

----------------------------------------

Finally, does anyone think it would be beneficial to swap Carmont and Gleeson? i.e. Have Gleeson lining up on the left along side Ainscough and Carmont with Roberts.

Reason I ask is that obviously Ainscough's main weakness is in defence, both positionally and in the air. Carmont isn't the best in defence either and I think having Gleeson inside of Ainscough might improve his positional play no end and it would be reassuring to know Gleeson is there alongside Ainscough in defence as I see Gleeson as the stronger defender between him and Carmont.

Plus it would mean Gleeson has a bit more of the ball since most of our attack is channelled down the left hand side. Also if we are looking to release Carmont at the end of next season then it would mean we would have some consistency with Gleeson and Ainscough so they could build a partnership over a few season.

May be a rubbish idea, may be worth a go.

rl : Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:08 pm  

On the Fox Sports site they are quoting Melbourne as saying Brett Finch won't be playing with them next year.
His agent has been talking to four SL clubs on his behalf.
Is he what we want?

: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:32 pm  

Panda Antics wrote:

-----------------------------------------
Finally, does anyone think it would be beneficial to swap Carmont and Gleeson? i.e. Have Gleeson lining up on the left along side Ainscough and Carmont with Roberts.

Reason I ask is that obviously Ainscough's main weakness is in defence, both positionally and in the air. Carmont isn't the best in defence either and I think having Gleeson inside of Ainscough might improve his positional play no end and it would be reassuring to know Gleeson is there alongside Ainscough in defence as I see Gleeson as the stronger defender between him and Carmont.

Plus it would mean Gleeson has a bit more of the ball since most of our attack is channelled down the left hand side. Also if we are looking to release Carmont at the end of next season then it would mean we would have some consistency with Gleeson and Ainscough so they could build a partnership over a few season.

May be a rubbish idea, may be worth a go.

I mentioned it a whilke ago, but loads of people went on about him passing in left to right, he's a right centre and Carmont is a left centre, passing from right to left

They must struggle passing it the other way

I thought Carmont on the right, would bring Roberts into play far more.