: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:00 pm  

all this Hock talk is amusing, what's to say that our new Australian coach will want a former druggie player back in the side, from all accounts Hock was a problem when it came to training, turning up late or not turning up at all also he will be ring rusty having not played for x amount of months, i reckon Hock could be looking for another club myself, after all if MM gets us going great guns why would he want the potential disruption of the buffoon that is Hock spoiling what he achieved.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:10 pm  

Baked Bean Boogie wrote:

all this Hock talk is amusing, what's to say that our new Australian coach will want a former druggie player back in the side, from all accounts Hock was a problem when it came to training, turning up late or not turning up at all also he will be ring rusty having not played for x amount of months, i reckon Hock could be looking for another club myself, after all if MM gets us going great guns why would he want the potential disruption of the buffoon that is Hock spoiling what he achieved.

Fair enough that’s your opinion and your entitled to it but IMO Hock is far too good of a player to let him just walk away to another team.

The main reason I think he’ll be a success is that his time away from the game will not only have mellowed him but it will have massively knocked his rep and standing at Wigan. Let’s face it at the start of this season Hock was the top dog here and could do ‘bad things’ in training and get away with it. When he comes back he’s gonna have to fight for everything he gets as there will be players filling the role he used to and he’s gotta prove his worth to dislodge them.

Top British props are few and far between as apart from Graham, Peacock and Morley the rest, imo, are just plain average. Hock will be an asset to any team he comes into.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:17 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

Fair enough that’s your opinion and your entitled to it but IMO Hock is far too good of a player to let him just walk away to another team.

The main reason I think he’ll be a success is that his time away from the game will not only have mellowed him but it will have massively knocked his rep and standing at Wigan. Let’s face it at the start of this season Hock was the top dog here and could do ‘bad things’ in training and get away with it. When he comes back he’s gonna have to fight for everything he gets as there will be players filling the role he used to and he’s gotta prove his worth to dislodge them.

Top British props are few and far between as apart from Graham, Peacock and Morley the rest, imo, are just plain average. Hock will be an asset to any team he comes into.

I agree.

I find it amusing, in a sad kind of way, that so many people are passing judgement on how Hock will handle this crisis in his life, and are second-guessing the way the club will respond to him in two years' time.

We don't have any answers to these questions. But if Hock has served his time, is genuinely contrite and comes back looking to rediscover himself as an athlete, Wigan would barmy not to at least consider him. The one thing of course that may influence them the other way is the state of our salary cap. It's difficult to see that he'd come back on anything more than a journeyman wage, most likely (and hopefully) because that's all we'll have available.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:25 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

one thing of course that may influence them the other way is the state of our salary cap. It's difficult to see that he'd come back on anything more than a journeyman wage, most likely (and hopefully) because that's all we'll have available.

I will personally be very, very surprised if Hock comes back to SL on top dollar wages. He knows he’s gonna have to come back to a sliding scale wage because of the risk involved for the club, the offence he’s committed and the time of season his ban will be up.

Hock will almost certainly be earning peanuts during those first six months and is realistically only going to start earning a decent wage as time passes and his performance levels increase.

Hock on a very cheap wage half way through the 2011 season will be a very, very tempting proposition for most of the teams in SL.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:07 pm  

jonh wrote:

I would be more than happy with Bailey on a 2 year deal for 2010.

Dirty, in your face nasty Prop and not a bad player at all, would not be top of my list but given our failings think he could fit in nicely.

A frontrow including Hock (who I am sure will move forward at the end of his ban) and Bailey when Hock returns to the club would not be a very nice prospect at all to play against for our opposition.

Bailey is a cowardly cheap shot merchant. Wouldn't have him anywhere near the team. The only time he is the enforcer prop is when he knows he's onto a winner and isn't gonna get some pasty back. Thanks but no thanks

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:13 pm  

Bailey is shat and not even hard. If that's MM's ace card then I'll be extremely disappointed.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:26 pm  

CAM. wrote:

Bailey is shat and not even hard. If that's MM's ace card then I'll be extremely disappointed.

He may be our only option for a prop. Who else is out there?
Leeds must release somebody, where is Greg Eastwood going to fill in?
I agree with Jonh, although Bailey isn't a player I'd be 'happy' with he would add the extra biff we need in the propping department.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:32 pm  

I'd rather sign nobody.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:48 pm  

CAM. wrote:

I'd rather sign nobody.

I agree.

: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:53 pm  

lothlorian wrote:

Bailey is a cowardly cheap shot merchant. Wouldn't have him anywhere near the team. The only time he is the enforcer prop is when he knows he's onto a winner and isn't gonna get some pasty back. Thanks but no thanks

I do not like him, and i agree he picks and chooses his times but it is better than having nobody at all.

He is the master of the cheap shot dirty tactic sly digs etc etc etc, something i think we need.

I also think he is a pretty good players to be honest, in spite of him being a total pleb.